Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Experimenter's Corner | moderated by John Raica

Pages from the Book of Life


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 329 in total
Thu, 25 Jun 2015 #31
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Dan,

It might be that this "other energy" is in the understanding of the limitations and the errors inherent in thinking and thought (the "self.") There is then an abandonment of thinking -- which is the "time" of entropy and becoming.

max

Dan McDermott wrote:
It would seem that what is necessary for thought to no longer 'move', control, in this sphere is, as K. said somewhere, for the brain to see its own limitation; that thought can never, being the past, the known, understand the 'unknown', i.e.. That its creation of the 'self', the 'I' for its own security and continuity ultimately gives neither... But how does this take place?

Max and Dan, as far as I understand something, if there is no sorrow, pain, suffering, anxiety, frustration, discontentment and so on, I do not see one single reason why the thinking process is going to change anything at all...2500 years of man's insane history shows that alas, this is a fact..apart from a few exceptions in 2500 years..but look the four noble truth of the buddha, it is about dukkha , so suffering etc and what k said about suffering too...

the thing ,for me, is that in many talks, suffering and so what is unconscious for the analyser are out of the way as it could have been k's state of the brain, but as to other participant they have not solved those problems and the talk goes on as if they dit solve suffering and all that....

Lately , I am not even sure about security and even survival instinct, as you mention security the other dan, because based on the revealing of the analysing program it could well be instead , closer to the origin , the fact that the analyser can only analyse the known...when it meets something unknown, it just can't work, because it analyses the past only, including the 1 micro second past, so this movement when the analyser does to go back to something known instead of staying with the unknown unable to analyse is translated by the analyser as a search for security and survival instinct....well now I think that I have seen that this is false..
does this change much ?

Yes absolutely....if there is no security seeking and survival instinct...we are even more in the error than we may think....

instead of that there is just a proper functioning,and we human do not function properly with at least 80% of the brain gone...

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 #32
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

Then this has brought many deep vision about my personal own roots disorder and some global vision which I do not really know about their validity; nevertheless they are in my brain..like there had been somehow unknown creation and movement within the limited even if huge perimeter of matter, creation and movement so no big bang with expansion, like the root of "me" could originally simply be the vital need to differentiate each one so each me as not obviously you, to physically differentiate one with the environment, as well as metaphysically separate each me from the environment in order to factually create the analyser ,which is a vital survival tool..like there is no evolution of species but changes and possibly was included from the very beginning the global intention behind, what the Universe would have a motive? this is not krishnamurtian by the way ..but I know that when k mention motive he only mentions analytical ones..by the way ,change, was the real meaning of the word evolution long ago..then "we" ( leaders of the actual empire) included long into that word a movement from the worse to the better.., behind was an evil plan to intellectually justify all colonisation so wars,killing,staling etc ,because of this argument: look at the universe and our evolution, there is no alternative but to fight each other, to be in competition etc etc

As well as now there is for me this involuntary questioning of security and survival instinct as roots, I am not sure any more that this is so the root...I see something behind that, so as such security and survival instinct are not root subjects...I see the simple functioning of the analyser which cannot analyse the unknown so it cannot live it at all...and instead of understanding all that it does not even try out of laziness and decides that there is a quest for security and a quest for survival at any cost...for me this is not true,but again this argument is so welcome for any power...it cut us from deep truth

Well what is fact is simply always passionate....and amazingly brings some peace with itself....like real history and not the false one we are told is in fact interesting...and a real threat to the gangsters leading the world, the real and factual history of the past 120 years still have to be written...

like I don't see how our possible ancestors, some big apes with so many missing links that it sounds much like a joke of our dear scientist slaves of the powers for money and fame ,so how our alleged ancestors would have anything to see with our insanity, not is it the alleged past where we are supposed to have spend all our time fighting each other which for someone having a bit of clue about food searching, hunting, and producing is just impossible ..cooperation and sharing was necessary the basement of societies long ago..then something got wrong and still is up to now..

when all this insanity for me is just the absence of the other process(es) not turned on which drives us mad insane as we are..

So there are at least in us two totally different processes , one analyses to create means to physically live, this process has a polarity, a duality base, which is extracting the analyser from the present in order for itself to be able to analyse; its field of competences are the means , the tools etc,

the other one is not separated from the present this on is for anything else but tools, practicality ....it does not function on memories...

both are vital and must function together which they do when both are turned on...

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Fri, 26 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 #33
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
and that's where freely speaking forums such as this are showing their utility. At least the deeper issues are 'exposed'. But this is just half of the job since our ages old longing for pleasure and safety is still driving the world. Collaterally it does also generate sorrow, but that's...'tomorrow' and people got quite accustomed with a 'tomorrow' that (hopefully ?) never comes...

Agreed..

there is nothing to be done by one about the world and k may even be much more right than we may think when saying: changing yourself changing the world ....the personal is vital so, but not where and how we have placed it , it is vital only within the global which is above as a force, when today we are conditioned to think that we think that only the personal exists and this personal is what creates the global.."they" have created an inversion of the real ...

A fundamental mistake being that me the self centred one thinks global in the sense the world must be me, when it should never do that at all and stay within its field of competencies by thinking tools for survival and how to do that and nothing else..

etc

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 #34
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 136 posts in this forum Offline

This morning, upon waking, the perception right or wrong that I had was that a source of our 'sorrow' was that we have lost our connection with Nature. Somewhere back in time this connection was there and over centuries it dissipated. The 'fresh' energy that the birds and animals start each new day with seems missing. They seem to be truly "of the world", not in some romantic, sentimental way but in the way K. suggested that 'we are the world'. Perhaps it's the weight of our memories, of the past, whatever is responsible, we are like strangers here trying through other means to compensate for this loss. (of innocence?,of belonging?). With this perception,of our alienation, it seemed what is taking place within us and around us is inevitable. I guess, if this is true, that it is the result of the 'old brain' K. speaks of above. It is certainly not a matter of going back...but to have this 'connection' seems vital.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 26 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 #35
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:

Dan McDermott wrote:

It is that we are not actually 'authors' of our 'own' thinking. The thinking process goes on (endlessly it seems) but there is 'actually' no 'thinker', no 'me' apart from the process as it rolls along. That is a rather frightening notion in the sense that there is 'no-one' in charge of this outpouring from the brain. But if this is the actual state of affairs and the 'illusion' of me being in control is seen through, it doesn't mean, one will be 'out of control', just that the ordinary perception of 'me at the helm' is false and the 'steering' is actually being directly handled by the brain itself with the powerful illusion of my participation in the process 'added on'?

Yes!

I am translating Richard post for Dan McDermott, he asked me for that.

Hi Dan(the other Dan), good morning, I am sorry but my English is not good enough , then I can't express thing as I would like to, so I keep it in French.

Yes that is exactly what it is about...according to me this is where attention has to be. Perception everything which appears to us, does not appear to anyone in fact.But the brain is organising "what is" ( as it appears to itself) into a subject which perceives an object, a thinker who thinks, an observer who observes( thoughts, sensations etc..)

this is "crystallized" by the mental and is turned into absolute reality..nevertheless this is not a fact, it is only a perception.

This is where "deep understanding" ( insight?meditation?awareness?) is vitally needed in order to realise that anything can be of matter for deep non analytical attention.
Like anything which is perceived is subject to a like/dislike conflict,( as it becomes duality for the brain) sorrow which comes from an imbalance generated by the functioning of the brain itself , sorrow inevitably is a mean and a matter for deep attention, because this imbalance of sorrow will be constant as long as it is not perceived as such...as long as this is not deeply realised

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Sun, 28 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 #36
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The thinking process goes on (endlessly it seems) but there is 'actually' no 'thinker', no 'me' apart from the process as it rolls along.

hello the other Dan..

well that seems factual to me.The process itself and its consequences in producing ideas, concepts, and lies as well seems to be all this ,as a sort of one item . This is where i find the understanding of how analysing-thought work , it is about its programming, very.....handy, for me such understanding through revealing in flashes has started involuntarily when I started again to let sorrow be itself so not interfering somehow differently each time..

Dan McDermott wrote:
That is a rather frightening notion in the sense that there is 'no-one' in charge of this outpouring from the brain. But if this is the actual state of affairs and the 'illusion' of me being in control is seen through, it doesn't mean, one will be 'out of control', just that the ordinary perception of 'me at the helm' is false and the 'steering' is actually being directly handled by the brain itself with the powerful illusion of my participation in the process 'added on'? Does that make sense?

well there is a program which does that and yes even though I may know that, I still appear to my own eyes to be a me, with his history ,success ,pain and the all shebang .

Myself so far have no problem with that "illusion" of I, because I understand that the personal is a reality too, but only when it is embedded in the global yes.

In other terms the thinking process is fine when beside it and as an intelligent global non analytical process, the missing capacities and process we have is turned on..

When this other process is turned off, well this is what we are living so know about the effects days after days..

the problem I see here is when the personal negates the global so itself without knowing it in fact...then it is war within me and in the world..because I have seen deeply that the global , unity , etc is what prevail as an energy on the personal.

In the outer world in the present fight , the neocons and all friends all over the world, intellectually deny the global so the collective as vitally being the prime energy behind all what is , which is linking and above everything . In doing so they negate the other process to be a reality,and just keep thought as the only supreme tool mankind has....it is then the negation of the right to everything to be what it is and the submission to a sort of superior violent order, the problem is here that seen that way most people on earth are then some sort of neocons too without being aware of it.. Our global state of the brain mind gas created such insanity...me me me dos not cooperate it uses things so people for gaining anything...again this is where the knowledge of how the analyser works is huge...because all becomes clear...why this ,why that is understood ...

For me my vision of all that says that without the collective as the basement there would be no personal at all .the neocons affirm that it is the personal fight multiplied by X billion who creates a form of global "what is", of course in that case this personal global what is is lead by them, that is the main point!!

....but one single brain for me works exactly that way too...on one hand it negates the global, me me me seems the only concern, then when it comes to practicalities of life , me me me is not capable to survive without the global as a collective and would not even be born anyway; and if allowed me me me is using the global it is negating to steal it, to profit of what is done together...this is where competition was invented, as it does not exist..again without knowing enough of the analyser program this cannot be understood deep enough in order to produce some awakening to what is factual and what is not...this is where I go along with what Richard is saying :

-this is "crystallized" by the mental and is turned into absolute reality..nevertheless this is not a fact, it is only a perception.

So yes it seems to make sense for me...

but is it a trigger of some sort or just more intellectual stuff ???

For me what has come first was living sorrow,so leaving sorrow alone...then things start to happen...
I just had no choice ..................

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 #37
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 136 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
Krishnamurti: First, why do you object if your mind chatters? If you want to 'end' chattering, then the problem starts. Duality is (introduced by?) the desire to end "what is". Why do you object to it? Noises are going on, buses are passing, crows are cawing. Let chattering go on. I am not going to resist it. I am not going to be interested in it. It is there. It means nothing.

This is so simple sounding and so clear. Sitting this morning taking in the sights and sounds around here, thought would arise, again and again. First reactions are "oh shut up and let me just be quiet!" But then the question arises: who is it that wants this 'shutting up'? What is the resistance to this thinking (interuption),i.e? And then it's seen that the resistance is simply more thought and motivated by the 'desire' to 'be quiet'(to be something other than what one is). It also seemed that without'thinking', 'I' don't exist! (the 'I' IS thought) just the sights and the sounds do. But with the 'sounds'; upon hearing the different birds,i.e, a name, and an image of that particular bird (even if it's not in view) arise immediately.etc., etc.
And then later walking in the woods here, which I try to do a couple of times a day to keep the blood going to where it's supposed to go, thoughts would of course arise, having to do with say some financial matter and some plan would be formed and as the Other Dan says:.. "Blah, blah, blah... so after reading the conversation you just posted, which I thank you for John as usual, it was interesting to read K.'s take on all this "chattering" as "meaning nothing" and certainly not to be resisted. (the resistor is the resisted.) And thanks to you, Dan and Richard for the comments.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 28 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jun 2015 #38
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
Ce qu il faut comprendre derrière tout ça, c'est le fait que c'est au travers du mouvement des 5 sens et du mental qu'apparaît le sentiment d'un témoin, d'un pilote, d'un observateur... c'est à dire que la cognition de chaque informations/mouvements devient elle même l'objet du mental qui cristallisera une notion, la notion du témoin, agent etc...

C'est donc de ce fait que, comme tout ce qui apparaît, apparaît par le biais des 5 sens et du mental, que tout est support pour l'attention, la méditation... ce qui permet de faire surgir, d'apercevoir l'évidence du fait que tout est perception y compris le sentiment, la sensation de témoin, de pilote.

Salut rirrou!!

le témoin dans le programme est le moment de la décision finale oui/non me semble t' il. K appelle cela le censeur,celui qui dit oui/non..il est ainsi tout naturellement un élément du programme pensée...celui qui finalise toute l'analyse...finalement il semble donc logique que ce soit la partie du programme qui a le dernier rôle qui joue aussi le rôle de "je", qui quelque part confirme qui dirige l'analyse ..il y a en quelque sorte réellement une sorte de "je" décisionnaire final donc chef dans ce programme d'analyse ou pensée..

Et comme disait Saint Coluche, ce chef il veut donner son avis sur tout, mais il veut surtout donner son avis, tout le temps..

Pour la méditation je ne sais pas, je n' ai jamais pratiqué cela comme je l'ai dit à John....vous pourriez peut etre développer cela ,car si je ne saisis pas vraiment ce que c'est , ce qui est le cas, pour d'autres qui lisent cela va etre pareil et limiter le dialogue en fait..

bises.

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Mon, 29 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jun 2015 #39
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
And thanks to you, Dan and Richard for the comments.

no worries..;-)

Dan McDermott wrote:
First reactions are "oh shut up and let me just be quiet!" But then the question arises: who is it that wants this 'shutting up'? What is the resistance to this thinking (interruption),i.e? And then it's seen that the resistance is simply more thought and motivated by the 'desire' to 'be quiet'(to be something other than what one is). It also seemed that without 'thinking', 'I' don't exist! (the 'I' IS thought) just the sights and the sounds do.

Well the other Dan, what I know by experiment, and how surprisingly ,again or one more time it is linked to properly living sorrow-pain-frustration etc and not analytically rejecting it (which is impossible anyway) but being defeated by it, smashed by it etc, well I discovered for myself that when living sorrow just because I am defeated, and so expect nothing for some time, then the the bla bla bla keeps going on but surprisingly something makes that it goes on but for once without doing anything about it , I do not listen to it...

Then here too something unusual may or will happen....but more words right there is no useful right now....

So if I am not imbalanced enough, only thinking will prevail, yet playing a non analyser...in what I know..John says that there is another way, not the hard way...with mediation, but this is something I do not know about for myself..

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jun 2015 #40
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:

paul daniel wrote:

sans la conclusion finale j'aime ou je n'aime pas, tout semble différent...

Oui déjà, tout semble, tout est différent et pourtant... il y a encore la base de l'émergence d'un témoin (illusoire), qui, par la suite, évaluera...

je reviens en arrière sur l'observation de ce qu'il reste des moments étranges profond ou le cerveau semble fonctionner à plein, il n'y a plus d'avis, oui, non, je ne sais pas ou neutre, il y a cependant quelque chose d'autre à la place de cela, une sorte de contact intense et beau non lié à un avis car tout est alors profondément intéressant,si si, ;-) qui donne une totale béatitude ,une totale satisfaction dans le sens ou je ne cherche rien de plus, tout se passe tout seul........encore une truc de fainéant probablement anti neocons.. :-))

désolé pour les mots aujourd'hui tous tombés en désuétude voir pire, genre totalement niais...

ce dont je parle est l'absence de ce témoin donc..etc qui fut une réalité profonde...et qui de temps en temps est redevenu une réalité relative seulement ,qui est déjà un élément qui change la souffrance..car elle peut etre attaquée à la racine..relative, dans mon cas pas à la racine absolue originelle si cela est possible, ce que je ne sais pas..

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jun 2015 #41
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

richard villar wrote:
Et oui, mais ça c'est une conséquence... la conséquence d'un arrêt du mental lié à une détente, un état "d'acceptation"...

Difficile pour moi d’être précis là dessus,d'abord parce que ça va trop vite, ensuite il y a un instant ou il n'y a pas de béatitude mais dans les cas qui me concernent il y a effectivement une humeur d'un glauque plus que triste et oui le fait de le vivre point barre sans motif autre que dire OK je le vis..et tout à coup c'est là, mais dans ce que je connais "je" le vois arriver pendant 2 à 3 secondes jusqu'à cette sorte d’explosion connexion étrange qui prends le relais de la pensée ordinaire ,mais cependant ceci ne fut jamais vécue comme une surprise en quoi que ce soit, ni ne contient aucune peur....ni souffrance, ni avis j'aime ou pas etc ce qui défit ma logique analytique dans le sens je ne l'explique pas cet effet de non surprise, car on entre dans l'impensable , le non connu et pourtant de surprise il n'y a pas du tout....comme si ?????

Et ma présence ici, mais aussi bien ma quête personnelle donc avec au départ un motif conscient et volontaire, mais aussi dans un sens relié à cette démence planétaire dont il faudra bien se guérir un jours, est d'essayer de voir jusqu’à où je peux,donc en tant que "moi je" qui pense, déjà plus lucide que si rien d'extra ordinaire ne s'était passé , essayer de voir jusqu’où je peux faire quelque chose de concret pour que se brise la souffrance + ou - bien vécue d'une vie "analytique" ...faite de peur de frustrations,de mécontentement,de douleur, de pétage de plomb ,de névroses etc etc

ceci implique d'aller jusqu' au bout de ce que la pensée peut faire comme conneries....et éventuellement alors des fois la fermer " sa grande gueule"..:-)) parce que elle aura vu parce que vécu le lien direct souffrance = moi...par le biais de la souffrance laissée intouchable et donc non touchée par la pensée..ce qui déclenche.

tout ceci se doit d'exclure tout projet en vivant la souffrance, pour mi y compris de la résoudre, il y a un moment vital ou je ne fais rien de la sorte..là les choses se mettent en place...

bien sur ici il n'est que question d’essayer de décrire ce qui se passe en quelques secondes .

donc ce moi c'est quoi? est alors une bonne question..à laquelle je ne cherche pas de réponses...

Je ne fais plus confiances à des réponses intellectuelles non basées sur des faits, questions et réponses intello pures qui vont bien sur quand meme venir venir car c'est en mode automatique ...

mais pour une raison que je ne cherche pas à comprendre ,il semble que deux processus arrivent alors à + ou - fonctionner ensemble; meme en dehors de la présence de cette énergie étrange qui elle renvoie la pensée aux calendes Grecques, là ou elle est dans son domaine ..

à la cuisine pour faire des gâteaux...

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Mon, 29 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jun 2015 #42
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
et puis ça voudrait dire que cet état originel ne peut être généré autrement alors que si bien sûr.

de quoi parles tu richard ? ;-) ceci est bien mystérieux..

schuss...

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jun 2015 #43
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:

richard villlar wrote:

et puis ça voudrait dire que cet état originel ne peut être généré autrement alors que si bien sûr.

paul daniel wrote:

de quoi parles tu richard?

et bien qu'il ne faut pas faire de lien direct entre sorrow (d'une certaine intensité), et cet état, mais plutôt avec l'arrêt du mental/détente/acceptation/attention.

salut Richard...

pour moi le lien est ce qui "peut" se passer,car l'action interne mentale de sorrow qui amène l'unité là ou il y avait dualité sinon il ne peut ni disparaître, ni se résoudre,ni etre compris en profondeur; je dis "peut" car tout est si rapide que de décomposer le moment me semble impossible quand ça se produit,de plus justement à ce moment ou je vis sorrow, la pensée la ferme, donc cela devient affaire d'analyse ultérieure avec à nouveau une possibilité réelle d'erreur..

l'action de sorrow, au début certes avec un sorrow d'une intensité élevée peut très bien aussi se passer avec un sorrow tout "jeune" , à peine né, à peine perceptible que l'on sait à présent reconnaître comme tel..dans une quasi instantanéité est ce que je vois se produire de + en +..

Ciao !!

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jun 2015 #44
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
Salut dan,

Tu sais oooh combien je comprends ce dont tu parles...
je tenais à évoquer le fait que le lien direct est l'arrêt du mental.
Ce dont tu parles (sans le vouloir/savoir?) traite de la méditation sur le support qu'est sorrow et c'est très important...

non je ne savais pas cela à propos de méditation ,alors je fais cela depuis l'age de environ 10 ans...ah mon dieu mon dieu :-))......un peu comme Mr Jourdain et nous tous faisons de la prose sans le savoir...

pour moi meme cet élément est à la fois destructeur si il est fuit ce qui ne se passe jamais en réalité car au mieux on peut juste le cacher et est a la fois aussi un élément "constructeur" si laissé tranquille, je te l'accorde bien sur qu'il est très important dans sa spécificité...

ce qui en soi n'est bien sur pas du tout une découverte...par contre lorsque une personne va dans cette direction,cela devient alors une découverte pour cette personne..

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Tue, 30 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jun 2015 #45
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:

paul daniel wrote:

pour moi meme cet élément est à la fois destructeur si il est fuit

Oui... voilà, on en revient à "tout est support", tout ce qui apparaît...

Richard ce serait bien pour la compréhension que tu développes un peu plus ce que tu dis ici..

car les mots "tout est support" parlent peu...

Mère scie.......

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 Jul 2015 #46
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

Salut Richard

c'est plus clair oui...
Dans ce que je connais si j’ôte le fait du malaise de vivre, alors il n'y a plus une seule raison de se bouger le cul d'une manière ou d'une autre...par contre il peut y avoir plein de désirs d'essayer d’atteindre un supposé état fantastique...LE BONHEUR ABSOLU...quête de bonheur absolu qui pour moi deja signifie que le ver est dans le fruit..la quête du bonheur n'est elle pas delà la fuite de son supposé malheur ? Serais né avec en moi ce malaise qui le fait encore quand je suis assez jeune ? Mais qui va aller en s'amplifiant...

mais tout cela tourne en rond pour moi...l'analyse est vraiment gonflante sauf bien sur sauf où se trouve son domaine et où sa compétence est utile..

soit je fuis-ignore le malaise et cela donne notre monde violent ,criminel et en en guerre

soit je ne fuis pas...

qu'est ce qui va faire que je ne fuis plus ? pourquoi faire cela ?

Si le malaise atteint des proportions trop imposantes par rapport à ma propre résistance, je n'aurais plus le choix ou alors le suicide..lent ou rapide..

il y a ici un élément intéressant qui est la "fragilité " personnelle devant cette énormité démente qu'est devenu la vie humaine..cet élément est majeur et rarement évoqué...voir jamais en fait..

malaise de vivre, fragilité sont des éléments de base pour aller vers l'extra- ordinaire...sans vraiment le savoir..car cela n'est que un effet secondaire d'autre chose bien sur...

là pour moi on a une base fragile ,solide...

rien n'est encore arrivé dans le chemin de la compréhension mais des éléments serieux sont là..fragilisé par ce non sens ,par la violence, la démence, et ce malaise indicible que "je" ressens...le cocktail explosif est là.. il ouvre sur deux chemin...celui que l'on voit tous les jours partout qui est un suicide collectif lent comme le dit K, ou autre chose...

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Wed, 01 Jul 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 Jul 2015 #47
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Krishnamurti: Perfectly right. Let us call them the 'old' and the 'new' brain. The 'old' brain has, through centuries, collected all kinds of memories, registered every experience and it will function ( mechanistically?) on that level all the time. It has its continuity in time. If it has no continuity, then it becomes neurotic, schizophrenic, imbalanced. Now that is the old brain with all its stored-up (refreshed and recycled?) memories. However, such ( self produced mental ?) 'continuity' can never find anything new, because (inwardly) only when something ends, that there is something new.

John Raica wrote:
Krishnamurti: Let us get this clear. You ask me a question. The old brain responds according to its knowledge; if the old brain has no knowledge, no information, there is a (silent?) interval between the question and answer. In that ( silent interval of?) no- knowing, there is a state in which time does not exist. The moment I know (all the answers ?) , that 'knowing' (consciousness ) is ( a psycho-process of?) time.

Dan: it seems, John, that continuity is just the field where the old brain or analysing expands its capacities, I built a shelter with a mission by set up: it should last, there is no end as a goal, as an aim , a purpose, but RELATIVE continuity as a goal by set up, by programming..it is not capable to deal with the present, not its job, this continuity field is embedded within its set up...the analyser could say if aware of that: continuity of what I want, I must do is in the future,I have to give it some continuity when possible , this is my task for survival.

As such in fact so far it is not a big deal....yet!!

Then nothing else enters into ones life, continuity from relative becomes an absolute as it is only what "I" can see, because the analyser has no global intelligence....it has the eye fixed on the steering wheel and see nothing else but the steering wheel ...

then troubles have started .under various form...this time I do not mention the cursed words for once

5000 years later no deep problems are solved on the contrary...the machine took it over entirely, of course it is the only part of the brain at work, the old brain so, the animal brain, more the one of a jellyfish than anything else :-))

science is trying to be the new religion, the madness is so thick that it can be touched now; sadly it is even more empty than others false religion, true religion has k mentioned in the original meaning of religion,is to be linked, to be connected.....

again, here it is about the known and the unknown...when will the analyser learn that with what is unknown it is entirely useless ?

We really need the missing process now is not it ?

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 Jul 2015 #48
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
. So the 'observer' or 'analyser' or thinker' mode is just an 'intelligent' platform of psychological protection; And we have all become so good at doing it (sauf...les 'simples d'esprit') that we lost the awareness or the logical reason for doing it. No matter that's the latest computer doctor or the poorest peasant, we're all...expert thinkers- or rather, lost the basic awareness of what we are doing inwardly.

Agreed John....yet the peasant has more relation left with Nature as a mean to survive concretely so with real work than the computer doctor, in a world of peasant we survive, in a world of computer doctors only we do not..that is a considerable difference..yet the peasant is too an expert thinker like all of us but is clearly more directly practical, the field of thought..

That would be weird not to be expert thinkers as it is our only field of activity apart from exceptions from time to time or more like exceptions within the exceptions..to eventually be an exception is not having a status of "good" opposite to the "bad" but it is just factual for me here, as well as that some like k or others who can be exceptions to this common rule of all of us being only expert thinkers.

I agree that we have lost, if we ever had it ( I sense such time had been), the basic awareness of what we are inwardly doing..

John Raica wrote:
As soon as we start 'thinking' we are already rolling on the magic carpet of words and cultural images. So anything we discover, analyse, or philosophise is only relative to a certain cultural background (whatever rolling carpet you're on) .

Somehow we remain childlike when an adult ,by adult I mean a potentially fully physically developed brain mind..which keeps behaving as practically a baby...not even a child quite often, so as you say without a basic awareness of what we are inwardly doing.

after all the few ones leading the word they just want all the toys and things of the others like in a kindergarten..

John Raica wrote:
Now, no matter how you'd like to call the reverse attitude of returning to the sources of all this process - personally I'll call it an act of responsible awareness or the self-awareness level of meditation, - and at this point in time no 'school' or 'foundation' ( no matter of what denomination) is able to help us in doing it- this 'responsible awareness' action has to start from within ourselves

Well I don't particularly call it with a fixed expression, not yet anyway.

Well as it seems that no school can help about such " act of responsible awareness", this has already totally and radically changed the basement to approach the so called teaching and education. Both global and personal matter but we have put a personal where there is none at all..this me at war with others is just a sort of fantasy is not it..

if so we have no choice but to function rightly as if not doing so, the malfunctioning produces pain and suffering as well as fear and nonsense and much more like conflict so business so war etc etc etc inside so outside as a projection of the state of the inside..

If I really try to be personal only as today's main propaganda suggests ( well no one can force anyone to blindly believe so buy it ), it suggests too that there is no alternative to it and that the conflict-imaginary fight through permanent competition between all personal "me" is going to give a global ,but that there is no global at all as such ....

All this is pure BS, to give people some believes,something to watch and analyse, some proof, etc that what is happening is natural, it is the way it is because that is the way it is....this is empty of anything real but words..

When one is lost as most are, you may take it ...as it contains a goal in the future for the analyser so is in its field of competencies , a great goal that you may reach, and it will be heaven for you..it is exactly the way false religion function, tomorrow you'll be fine..OK today is messy and hell but believe me tomorrow bear that in mind that all will be fine...demain on rase gratis...

at the end of the day the personal matters within the global and vice versa..is one item it seems ? Only the analyser always dividing by need in order to focus on one part so having no set up capacity for the global makes such "false" qualitative approach which becomes absolute statement, a statement which as such has no reality, bit as only some eventual and potential analytical use??... when both are in fact interlocked somehow.

At he end of the day the analyser, we , try keep the personal only where there is an interlinked situation only....

This of course suggest, between the lines, a missing capacity for the global...as if not there would be no way out of that mess..but there is as we know it.

Recalling some past moments beyond the personal isolation it seems that there is no one in charge at all in moments of bliss, "all" seems to function on its own or rather according to something else but me which is in charge....that would be one of the closest saying I can now come across to mention to others such time with the bliss of the Origin or of the Universe or of Mother Nature or whatever word suits one here ...

well..........................!!!

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Wed, 01 Jul 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Jul 2015 #49
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:

paul daniel wrote:

I agree that we have lost, if we ever had it ( I sense such time had been), the basic awareness of what we are inwardly doing..

Hard to say, Dan, soon I'll start 'flash-posting'( that means, on a daily basis) some excerpts from Mrs Cannon's sessions- it would seem that at a certain level of our consciousness we never forget anything, while on the conscious levels there is a constant influx of new inputs which are replacing the old ones.

this seems right to me John...

John Raica wrote:
And just a small insight as to what I call an inner space of 'meditation'- it's like daily cultivating one's innermost garden- obviously no one will be doing it for you, and there is a constant tendency of 'weeds' accumulating. On a superficial level, it would seem that Mr K is against any such 'cultivation' (as a time binding endeavour) , but in terms of living our common daily existence in a rather ( especially culturally ) polluted environment, it may be an act of sanity and intelligence to try to clean it up un a daily basis- rather than when walking in the forest or driving a luxury 'motor car'...

Can you explain or expand a bit more with one or to example ,that I understand what you precisely mean..thanks.

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Jul 2015 #50
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
I'll just try a few pointers: firstly, we are all inheriting a 'materialistically oriented' consciousness with all its personal and collective content. I would call it 'conscience temporelle' and for most people that's less or more everything there is. Within the 'known' space of this consciousness we can think, act, create new technologies, ruthlessly compete, go to holidays, and so on. It is a relatively 'safe' place ( although some cultures do often collide)

Yes, but it is not safe, because we are all forced with or without acceptance to compete,the only safety is to be together which mankind refuses or is forced to not go into...so there is a sense of something which looks like a sort of safety by accumulation yes, but there is none deeply is my feeling ....everyone worries a lot..about this or about that....

it goes more deeply but I won't go into it now.

John Raica wrote:
Now for some people this 'known' space is all they'll ever need, while for others it may feel like the perfect inner prison- from where the sorrow, frustration, loneliness, etc. In fact the space of the known has everything in it...except freedom, love and true creativity

The known is a sort of tool, it contains nothing blissful but self rewards to reach, in fact apart techniques,memories to analyse; motives and things like that...it is empty....exactly like my lawnmower is...yet it has a plus which is this rewards motives which are there to make it work, my lawnmower has none of that..this is why desire is so important to see deeply insightfully,because here we have the core why I analyse...

John Raica wrote:
So, as these are not absolute priorities for our society as a whole- we'll have to consider for ourselves an inner space that is free of the known ( as there are a lot of 'smoke free' spaces in most coffee shops and restaurants) And that was my point, that since nobody can do this for us, we'll have to create it for ourselves.

I understand yes...

John Raica wrote:
Now, for people who are safely installed within this shared 'known' space- with all its rewards and servitudes the subject may seem optional, fictitious, unproductive, since a multitude of 'gurus' and 'psycho'-specialists are already making a living out of the benefits of transcending our 'normal' condition.

indeed.

John Raica wrote:
So again, speaking only for myself, creating and keeping clean this inner space of 'meditation' is an absolute responsibility towards my heritage of an intelligent consciousness. And again, this thing is rather 'binary': you see and do it or you don't..

Now i got it John, this is now out of the way,with the mention understood!

thanks...

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Thu, 02 Jul 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Jul 2015 #51
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
They must just have faith and just trust.

well John, I really am puzzled by all that...

I sometimes wonder which part of the brain can be hypnotized...after all are not we all hypnotised by the actual society without knowing it..

when I see the word faith, I just let go...

sorry, but if you bring some more here, I will read out of curiosity, as I still kept that since early years..

so in any case thanks for this
..

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Jul 2015 #52
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 136 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
D : People are so afraid of dying. Can you tell me what it is like when it happens?

S : Well, when I’m in the body it feels heavy. It pulls on me. It’s just uncomfortable. But when you die it’s a lifting of weight. People carry all those problems around. And it’s like they are carrying around a weight because they are heavy and laden with all these other things. When you die it’s like tossing them out the window and it feels good. It’s a transition.
I guess people are mostly afraid because they don’t know what to expect. They fear the unknown. They must just have faith and just trust.

Hi John,
This was interesting to read...I never heard of this person. I think the proper answer to the question though wouild be "no". When she says "have faith" does she mean in her description of the 'afterlife'? It's certainly a 'soothing' message of a place waiting for us after we've "shuffled off these mortal coils". But who knows?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Jul 2015 #53
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
So, if I'm finding some more 'learning' stuff from the other side, I'll take the liberty to flash post it, because when you read seriously the K bio one can see that there were far more weird things stuff happening in his inner life than many of his 'psychologically correct' talks would reveal

Indeed John, many would be more than surprised if they did not read that yet.....

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Jul 2015 #54
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

QUESTION: Can one help others by influencing them consciously?

KRISHNAJI: If you think you are wiser than anybody else, then you interfere. I would never voluntarily interfere with anybody unless they asked me to interfere and asked my advice and questioned me. Then I would give my opinion, but unasked I should never think of interfering. Why should you interfere with another? It may be his karma to walk a different path, to walk in a different direction, to have his mind differently composed from yours; and if you force him to adapt himself to you, you are doing him wrong.

QUESTION: For a practical mystic what would be the most effective way of helping others to reach Liberation? By becoming a fit channel for love and peace?

KRISHNAJI: I think the best way of helping others to reach Liberation is by reaching it yourself. If you had not reached it, and talked vaguely about it, you would soon be found out. The moment you are liberated, or struggling for Liberation, you do become a channel; but I dislike the word channel because it implies that you are acting for somebody else, and that somebody else is master over you, which personally I do not like.

QUESTION: What qualities do you consider most necessary for those who would be your disciples?

KRISHNAJI: It all depends. Suppose you went to a painter and asked him what qualities were necessary to become a painter, it would be very difficult for him to answer you. In the same way it would be difficult if you went to a musician, a composer or a writer and said: "Look here, I want to become what you are." He could only teach you the technique; he cannot give you the qualities of a great artist.

QUESTION: Do you look on the work of the World-Teacher as that of teaching individual men the way to liberation, only, or also as inspiring civilisation with new ideals in all departments -in art and religion, as well as in political and social life?

KRISHNAJI: I will explain my answer with a simile. We go into a garden and see a rose in magnificent bloom. One person who is an artist merely thinks of that rose in terms of painting; another who looks at that rose will go away and meditate; a third will translate that delight into some social activity. People approach religion in the same way as they approach that rose; it depends on the individual, on his temperament, his point of view, his idea of how best he can translate it to the outer world. For instance, say I am interested in education. I want to translate that Liberation in terms of educational ideals and to put it before young people, and children, so as to make them grow according to those ideals. Another person, seeing that Liberation, might be a keen social worker and might translate it in social terms and so help people to attain it.

QUESTION: How should suppression be used in control of the self?

KRISHNAJI: There should be no suppression. You know what happens when you kill some poison on the surface -that same poison will break out again somewhere else. If you try to cure a sore on the body without curing its real cause, it will come out somewhere else. I should never personally suppress anything, for the moment you do so it comes out in another form; but you should learn to control it and to transmute it -and translate it into activity.

QUESTION: What would you define as intelligent revolt?

KRISHNAJI: I feel every person should be in revolt because he should not mould himself to anyone's pattern. You should not mould yourselves to me any more than to somebody else. But in revolting you should be intelligent; that means that you should use the accumulation of your experience, use your intelligence as your guiding point, and revolt with that guide always in view, not just kick blindly, because that means that you are creating karma.

QUESTION: Some of those who in life are acquiring Liberation may have made certain ties which must be fulfilled, but for the younger people who have not formed such ties, would you say it meant not incurring them or incurring them in a new way?

KRISHNAJI: I have always wanted to attain Liberation; I have always wanted to come near the Buddha so that there should be no barrier between Him and myself. I let nothing interfere with that desire: I put aside all other desires; I said, I want to arrive at a certain stage as soon as I can, and anything which interferes must be set aside, must be conquered. I incurred no responsibility, which would come, in the way of my desire, and I have attained it. But do not think I mean that if you are longing to marry, longing to paint, that you should stop yourselves.

QUESTION: Is it not true that action done as duty and with detachment does not make karma?

KRISHNAJI: Yes, I think so.

QUESTION: In The Kingdom of Happiness you said it does not matter what is the degree of evolution of the individual; does that mean that at every degree of evolution one can attain Liberation?

KRISHNAJI: I am sure of it. Take a Sudra (of the lowest caste): if his desire to attain is so burning, so intense, that he throws aside everything, he will attain.

QUESTION: Do you mean by Liberation only a degree or stage of Liberation? Is it union with the Manifested Deity or with the Absolute?

KRISHNAJI: To me Liberation means, as I said yesterday, the destruction of the separate self, because it is the separate self, the self that is so dominant in each one that creates karma that binds. Once you have destroyed that self you are liberated and it does not matter whether you belong to the Manifested or to the Unmanifested, whether you belong to this house or that house, to this stage or that stage, for these are only technical terms.

QUESTION: If Liberation is the cessation of self, why do you associate happiness with it any more than unhappiness?

KRISHNAJI: 'Where the idea to live is a mistake and the idea not to live is an error...' You can call it happiness or unhappiness -Nirvana, Kailas, Heaven- until we find a word that everyone understands.

Early Writings
EERDE GATHERING 1927, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Eerde, Holland, 1927

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Jul 2015 #55
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 589 posts in this forum Offline

K SEEN THROUGH THE GLASSES OF ALDOUS HUXLEY

A FOREWORD TO "THE FIRST AND LAST FREEDOM"

MAN IS AN amphibian who lives simultaneously in two worlds - the given and the homemade, the world of matter, life and consciousness and the world of symbols. In our thinking we make use of a great variety of symbol-systems - linguistic, mathematical, pictorial, musical, ritualistic. Without such symbol-systems we should have no art, no science, no law, no philosophy, not so much as the rudiments of civilization: in other words, we should be animals. Symbols, then, are indispensable. But symbols - as the history of our own and every other age makes so abundantly clear - can also be fatal. Consider, for example, the domain of science on the one hand, the domain of politics and religion on the other. Thinking in terms of, and acting in response to, one set of symbols, we have come, in some small measure, to understand and control the elementary forces of nature. Thinking in terms of and acting in response to, another set of symbols, we use these forces as instruments of mass murder and collective suicide. In the first case the explanatory symbols were well chosen, carefully analysed and progressively adapted to the emergent facts of physical existence. in the second case symbols originally ill-chosen were never subjected to thoroughgoing analysis and never re-formulated so as to harmonize with the emergent facts of human existence. Worse still, these misleading symbols were everywhere treated with a wholly unwarranted respect, as though, in some mysterious way, they were more real than the realities to which they referred. In the contexts of religion and politics, words are not regarded as standing, rather inadequately, for things and events; on the contrary, things and events are regarded as particular illustrations of words. Up to the present symbols have been used realistically only in those fields which we do not feel to be supremely important. In every situation involving our deeper impulses we have insisted on using symbols, not merely unrealistically, but idolatrously, even insanely. The result is that we have been able to commit, in cold blood and over long periods of time, acts of which the brutes are capable only for brief moments and at the frantic height of rage, desire or fear. Because they use and worship symbols, men can become idealists; and, being idealists, they can transform the animal’s intermittent greed into the grandiose imperialisms of a Rhodes or a J. P. Morgan; the animal’s intermittent love of bullying into Stalinism or the Spanish Inquisition; the animal’s intermittent attachment to its territory into the calculated frenzies of nationalism. Happily, they can also transform the animal’s intermittent kindliness into the lifelong charity of an Elizabeth Fry or a Vincent de Paul; the animal’s intermittent devotion to its mate and its young into that reasoned and persistent co-operation which, up to the present, has proved strong enough to save the world from the consequences of the other, the disastrous kind of idealism.

Will it go on being able to save the world? The question cannot be answered. All we can say is that, with the idealists of nationalism holding the A-bomb, the odds in favour of the idealists of co-operation and charity have sharply declined. Even the best cookery book is no substitute for even the worst dinner. The fact seems sufficiently obvious. And yet, throughout the ages, the most profound philosophers, the most learned and acute theologians have constantly fallen into the error of identifying their purely verbal constructions with facts, or into the yet more enormous error of imagining that symbols are somehow more real than what they stand for. Their word-worship did not go without protest. ”Only the spirit,” said St. Paul, ”gives life; the letter kills.” ”And why,” asks Eckhart, ”why do you prate of God? Whatever you say of God is untrue.” At the other end of the world the author of one of the Mahayana sutras affirmed that ”the truth was never preached by the Buddha, seeing that you have to realize it within yourself”.

Such utterances were felt to be profoundly subversive, and respectable people ignored them. The strange idolatrous over-estimation of words and emblems continued unchecked. Religions declined; but the old habit of formulating creeds and imposing belief in dogmas persisted even among the atheists. In recent years logicians and semanticists have carried out a very thorough analysis of the symbols, in terms of which men do their thinking. Linguistics has become a science, and one may even study a subject to which the late Benjamin Whorf gave the name of meta-linguistics. All this is greatly to the good; but it is not enough. Logic and semantics, linguistics and meta-linguistics - these are purely intellectual disciplines. They analyse the various ways, correct and incorrect, meaningful and meaningless, in which words can be related to things, processes and events. But they offer no guidance, in regard to the much more fundamental problem of the relationship of man in his psychophysical totality, on the one hand, and his two worlds, of data and of symbols, on the other. In every region and at every period of history, the problem has been repeatedly solved by individual men and women. Even when they spoke or wrote, these individuals created no systems - for they knew that every system is a standing temptation to take symbols too seriously, to pay more attention to words than to the realities for which the words are supposed to stand. Their aim was never to offer ready-made explanations and panaceas; it was to induce people to diagnose and cure their own ills, to get them to go to the place where man’s problem and its solution present themselves directly to experience.

In this volume of selections from the writings and recorded talks of Krishnamurti, the reader will find a clear contemporary statement of the fundamental human problem, together with an invitation to solve it in the only way in which it can be solved - for and by himself. The collective solutions, to which so many so desperately pin their faith, are never adequate. ”To understand the misery and confusion that exist within ourselves, and so in the world, we must first find clarity within ourselves, and that clarity comes about through right thinking. This clarity is not to be organized, for it cannot be exchanged with another. Organized group thought is merely repetitive. Clarity is not the result of verbal assertion, but of intense self-awareness and right thinking. Right thinking is not the outcome of or mere cultivation of the intellect, nor is it conformity to pattern, however worthy and noble. Right thinking comes with self-knowledge. Without understanding yourself you have no basis for thought; without self-knowledge, what you think is not true.”

This fundamental theme is developed by Krishnamurti in passage after passage. ‘’There is hope in men, not in society, not in systems, organized religious systems, but in you and in me.” Organized religions, with their mediators, their sacred books, their dogmas, their hierarchies and rituals, offer only a false solution to the basic problem. ”When you quote the Bhagavad Gita, or the Bible, or some Chinese Sacred Book, surely you are merely repeating, are you not? And what you are repeating is not the truth. It is a lie, for truth cannot be repeated.” A lie can be extended, propounded and repeated, but not truth; and when you repeat truth, it ceases to be truth, and therefore sacred books are unimportant. It is through self-knowledge, not through belief in somebody else’s symbols, that a man comes to the eternal reality, in which his being is grounded. Belief in the complete adequacy and superlative value of any given symbol system leads not to liberation, but to history, to more of the same old disasters. ”Belief inevitably separates. If you have a belief, or when you seek security in your particular belief, you become separated from those who seek security in some other form of belief. All organized beliefs are based on separation, though they may preach brotherhood.”

The man who has successfully solved the problem of his relations with the two worlds of data and symbols, is a man who has no beliefs. With regard to the problems of practical life he entertains a series of working hypotheses, which serve his purposes, but are taken no more seriously than any other kind of tool or instrument. With regard to his fellow beings and to the reality in which they are grounded, he has the direct experiences of love and insight. It is to protect himself from beliefs that Krishnamurti has ”not read any sacred literature, neither the Bhagavad Gita nor the Upanishads”. The rest of us do not even read sacred literature; we read our favourite newspapers, magazines and detective stories. This means that we approach the crisis of our times, not with love and insight, but ”with formulas, with systems” - and pretty poor formulas and systems at that. But ”men of good will should not have formulas; for formulas lead, inevitably, only to ”blind thinking”. Addiction to formulas is almost universal. Inevitably so; for ”our system of upbringing is based upon what to think, not on how to think”. We are brought up as believing and practising members of some organization - the Communist or the Christian, the Moslem, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Freudian. Consequently ”you respond to the challenge, which is always new, according to an old pattern; and therefore your response has no corresponding validity, newness, freshness. If you respond as a Catholic or a Communist, you are responding - are you not? - according to a patterned thought. Therefore your response has no significance. And has not the Hindu, the Mussulman, the Buddhist, the Christian created this problem? As the new religion is the worship of the State, so the old religion was the worship of an idea.” If you respond to a challenge according to the old conditioning, your response will not enable you to understand the new challenge. Therefore what ”one has to do, in order to meet the new challenge, is to strip oneself completely, denude oneself entirely of the background and meet the challenge anew”. In other words symbols should never be raised to the rank of dogmas, nor should any system be regarded as more than a provisional convenience. Belief in formulas and action in accordance with these beliefs cannot bring us to a solution of our problem. ”It is only through creative understanding of ourselves that there can be a creative world, a happy world, a world in which ideas do not exist.” A world in which ideas do not exist would be a happy world, because it would be a world without the powerful conditioning forces which compel men to undertake inappropriate action, a world without the hallowed dogmas in terms of which the worst crimes are justified, the greatest follies elaborately rationalized.

An education that teaches us not how but what to think is an education that calls for a governing class of pastors and masters. But ”the very idea of leading somebody is antisocial and anti-spiritual”. To the man who exercises it, leadership brings gratification of the craving for power; to those who are led, it brings the gratification of the desire for certainty and security. The guru provides a kind of dope. But, it may be asked, ”What are you doing? Are you not acting as our guru?” ”Surely,” Krishnamurti answers, ”I am not acting as your guru, because, first of all, I am not giving you any gratification. I am not telling you what you should do from moment to moment, or from day to day, but I am just pointing out something to you; you can take it or leave it, depending on you, not on me. I do not demand a thing from you, neither your worship, nor your flattery, nor your insults, nor your gods. I say,” This is a fact; take it or leave it. And most of you will leave it, for the obvious reason that you do not find gratification in it.”

What is it precisely that Krishnamurti offers? What is it that we can take if we wish, but in all probability shall prefer to leave? It is not, as we have seen, a system of belief, a catalogue of dogmas, a set of ready-made notions and ideals. It is not leadership, not mediation, not spiritual direction, not even example. It is not ritual, not a church, not a code, not uplift or any form of inspirational twaddle. Is it, perhaps, self-discipline? No; for self-discipline is not, as a matter of brute fact, the way in which our problem can be solved. In order to find the solution, the mind must open itself to reality, must confront the givenness of the outer and inner worlds without preconceptions or restrictions. (God’s service is perfect freedom. Conversely, perfect freedom is the service of God.) In becoming disciplined, the mind undergoes no radical change; it is the old self, but ”tethered, held in control”. Self-discipline joins the list of things which Krishnamurti does not offer. Can it be, then, that what he offers is prayer? Again, the reply is in the negative. ”Prayer may bring you the answer you seek; but that answer may come from your unconscious, or from the general reservoir, the storehouse of all your demands. The answer is not the still voice of God.” Consider, Krishnamurti goes on, ”what happens when you pray. By constant repetition of certain phrases, and by controlling your thoughts, the mind becomes quiet, doesn’t it? At least, the conscious mind becomes quiet. You kneel as the Christians do, or you sit as the Hindus do, and you repeat and repeat, and through that repetition the mind becomes quiet. In that quietness there is the intimation of something. That intimation of something, for which you have prayed, may be from the unconscious, or it may be the response of your memories. But, surely, it is not the voice of reality; for the voice of reality must come to you; it cannot be appealed to, you cannot pray to it. You cannot entice it into your little cage by doing puja, bhajan and all the rest of it, by offering it flowers, by placating it, by suppressing yourself or emulating others. Once you have learned the trick of quietening the mind, through the repetition of words, and of receiving hints in that quietness, the danger is - unless you are fully alert as to whence those hints come - that you will be caught, and then prayer becomes a substitute for the search for Truth. That which you ask for you get; but it is not the truth. If you want, and if you petition, you will receive, but you will pay for it in the end.” From prayer we pass to yoga, and yoga, we find, is another of the things which Krishnamurti does not offer. For yoga is concentration, and concentration is exclusion. ”You build a wall of resistance by concentration on a thought which you have chosen, and you try to ward off all the others.” What is commonly called meditation is merely ”the cultivation of resistance, of exclusive concentration on an idea of our choice”. But what makes you choose? ”What makes you say this is good, true, noble, and the rest is not? Obviously the choice is based on pleasure, reward or achievement; or it is merely a reaction of one’s conditioning or tradition. Why do you choose at all? Why not examine every thought? When you are interested in the many, why choose one? Why not examine every interest? Instead of creating resistance, why not go into each interest as it arises, and not merely concentrate on one idea, one interest? After all, you are made up of many interests, you have many masks, consciously and unconsciously. Why choose one and discard all the others, in combating which you spend all your energies, thereby creating resistance, conflict and friction. Whereas if you consider every thought as it arises - every thought, not just a few thoughts - then there is no exclusion. But it is an arduous thing to examine every thought. Because, as you are looking at one thought, another slips in. But if you are aware without domination or justification, you will see that, by merely looking at that thought, no other thought intrudes. It is only when you condemn, compare, approximate, that other thoughts enter in.” ”Judge not that ye be not judged.” The gospel precept applies to our dealings with ourselves no less than to our dealings with others. Where there is judgement, where there is comparison and condemnation, openness of mind is absent; there can be no freedom from the tyranny of symbols and systems, no escape from the past and the environment. Introspection with a predetermined purpose, self-examination within the framework of some traditional code, some set of hallowed postulates - these do not, these cannot help us. There is a transcendent spontaneity of life, a ‘creative Reality’, as Krishnamurti calls it, which reveals itself as immanent only when the perceiver’s mind is in a state of ‘alert passivity’, of ‘choiceless awareness’. Judgement and comparison commit us irrevocably to duality. Only choiceless awareness can lead to non-duality, to the reconciliation of opposites in a total understanding and a total love. Ama et fac quod vis. If you love, you may do what you will. But if you start by doing what you will, or by doing what you don’t will in obedience to some traditional system or notions, ideals and prohibitions, you will never love.

The liberating process must begin with the choiceless awareness of what you will and of your reactions to the symbol-system which tells you that you ought, or ought not, to will it. Through this choiceless awareness, as it penetrates the successive layers of the ego and its associated subconscious, will come love and understanding, but of another order than that with which we are ordinarily familiar. This choiceless awareness - at every moment and in all the circumstances of life - is the only effective meditation. All other forms of yoga lead either to the blind thinking which results from self-discipline, or to some kind of self-induced rapture, some form of false samadhi. The true liberation is ”an inner freedom of creative Reality”. This ”is not a gift; it is to be discovered and experienced. It is not an acquisition to be gathered to yourself to glorify yourself. It is a state of being, as silence, in which there is no becoming, in which there is completeness. This creativeness may not necessarily seek expression; it is not a talent that demands outward manifestation. You need not be a great artist or have an audience; if you seek these, you will miss the inward Reality. It is neither a gift, nor is it the outcome of talent; it is to be found, this imperishable treasure, where thought frees itself from lust, ill will and ignorance, where thought frees itself from worldliness and personal craving to be. It is to be experienced through right thinking and meditation.” Choiceless self-awareness will bring us to the creative Reality which underlies all our destructive make-believes, to the tranquil wisdom which is always there, in spite of ignorance, in spite of the knowledge which is merely ignorance in another form. Knowledge is an affair of symbols and is, all too often, a hindrance to wisdom, to the uncovering of the self from moment to moment. A mind that has come to the stillness of wisdom ”shall know being, shall know what it is to love. Love is neither personal nor impersonal. Love is love, not to be defined or described by the mind as exclusive or inclusive. Love is its own eternity; it is the real, the supreme, the immeasurable.” ALDOUS HUXLEY

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Jul 2015 #56
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 136 posts in this forum Offline

John:

Thank you for posting this Aldous Huxley foreword, (he came to my grammar school in New York when I was eight years old and read a poem to our class!)
Following my thoughts this morning and finding difficulty to keep them in view, the word "arduous" came up (it had been recently talked about on another forum)...so I read with interest this:

K: " Why do you choose at all? Why not examine every thought? When you are interested in the many, why choose one? Why not examine every interest? Instead of creating resistance, why not go into each interest as it arises, and not merely concentrate on one idea, one interest? After all, you are made up of many interests, you have many masks, consciously and unconsciously. Why choose one and discard all the others, in combating which you spend all your energies, thereby creating resistance, conflict and friction. Whereas if you consider every thought as it arises - every thought, not just a few thoughts - then there is no exclusion. But it is an arduous thing to examine every thought. Because, as you are looking at one thought, another slips in. But if you are aware without domination or justification, you will see that, by merely looking at that thought, no other thought intrudes. It is only when you condemn, compare, approximate, that other thoughts enter in.”

'THE FIRST AND LAST FREEDOM'

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 06 Jul 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Jul 2015 #57
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

Public Talk, March 7th, 1948 | Mumbai, India

Aren't you under the belief that your thoughts are separate from yourself? This very question implies that, doesn't it? - that there is the controller and the controlled, the observer and the observed. Now, do we know this process to be a fact, that there is the observer and the observed, the controller and the controlled? Is this separation real? It is real in the sense that we are indulging in it. But is it not a trick of the mind? Please, in this question a great deal is involved, so don't accept or deny, don't defend or put aside what I am suggesting. Most of you believe that the thinker is separate, the higher self, the Atman, the watcher, dominating the lower self, and so on. Why is there this separation? Isn't this separation still within the field of the mind? When you say the thinker is the Atman, the watcher, and the thoughts are separate, surely that is still within the field of the mind.

Now, is it not that the mind, the thinker, has separated himself from his thoughts in order to give himself permanency? Because he can always modify his thoughts, he can always change his thoughts, put a new frame around them, while he remains apart and therefore gives himself permanency. But without the thoughts, the thinker is not. He may separate himself from his thoughts, but if he ceases to think, he no longer exists, does he? So, this separation of the thinker from his thoughts is a trick of the thinker to give himself security, permanency. That is, the mind perceives that thoughts are transient, and therefore it adopts the cunning trick of saying that it is the thinker apart from its thoughts, it is the Atman, the watcher, apart from action, from thought. But, if you observe the process very closely, putting aside all your acquired knowledge of what others have said, however great, then you will see that the observer is the observed, that the thinker is the thought. There is no thinker apart from thought; however widely, deeply and extensively he may separate himself or build a wall between himself and his thoughts, the thinker is still within the field of his thinking. Therefore, the thinker is the thought; so when you ask, `How can thought be controlled?', you are putting a wrong question.

When the thinker begins to control his thoughts, he does so merely to give himself continuity, or because he finds his thoughts are painful to him. Therefore, he wants to modify his thoughts, while he remains permanent behind the screen of words and thoughts. When once you admit that, which is true, then your disciplines, your pursuit of the higher, your meditations, your controls, all collapse. That is, if you are willing to look at the obvious fact that the thinker is the thought, and when you become fully aware of that fact, then you no longer think in terms of dominating, modifying, controlling, or canalizing your thoughts. Then the thought becomes important, and not the thinker. The emphasis then is not on the controller and how to control, but the thought which is controlled becomes important in itself. Understanding the thought process is the beginning of meditation, which is self-knowledge. Without self-knowledge, there is no meditation; and meditation of the heart is understanding. To understand, you cannot be tethered to any belief.

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Jul 2015 #58
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

paul daniel wrote:
Understanding the thought process is the beginning of meditation, which is self-knowledge. Without self-knowledge, there is no meditation; and meditation of the heart is understanding. To understand, you cannot be tethered to any belief.

That was the last quote of the day so today 6th of July..

Meditation not being my cup of tea as a word, when self awareness was not a subject too some 6 years ago ,until it has invited itself into my life, well I said : why not check a bit what is said here?

Understanding thought process came out of the blue, it started after the first time I re discovered what I found when quite young about living what is deeply wrong passively, considering that it is far too strong, too deep, too much unknown to try to resist it....

it started with a global view of analysing or thought if you prefer, shown as a mechanical square machine, a VERY rotten one as it happens to be now , a machine which randomly and with no clarity so blindly throw away some desires hoping to catch some like you would do with fishing rods to catch fish...

then bit by bit it was shown more and more aspects of the program itself, so now for example I see clearly what happens when I am proud of something done by myself..I see from which add-on this is coming from, as a pre programmed reaction, a vital one to make the all analytical program works..self pride is seen for what it is...an automatic so programmed reaction.....so I see that in others too...of course..

etc etc...

Self knowledge so it is about...meditation too..

for birth up to 54, I had no understanding of the analytical process,words I much prefer to thought which means nothing to me as such, like fear does not ..

Living sorrow by seeing that I was defeated, was the obvious trigger which triggered much more than self involuntary understanding..

all that seems linked ...I would be the first one to by pass sorrow if that is a possibility , but is it realistic ? an open question only.

krishnamurti:
the thinker is the thought; so when you ask, `How can thought be controlled?', you are putting a wrong question.

so far it sounds mysterious to me..yet thinker and thought is fine but about the wrong question ..

Dan McDermott wrote:
K: " Why do you choose at all? Why not examine every thought? When you are interested in the many, why choose one? Why not examine every interest? Instead of creating resistance, why not go into each interest as it arises, and not merely concentrate on one idea, one interest? After all, you are made up of many interests, you have many masks, consciously and unconsciously. Why choose one and discard all the others, in combating which you spend all your energies, thereby creating resistance, conflict and friction. Whereas if you consider every thought as it arises - every thought, not just a few thoughts - then there is no exclusion. But it is an arduous thing to examine every thought. Because, as you are looking at one thought, another slips in. But if you are aware without domination or justification, you will see that, by merely looking at that thought, no other thought intrudes. It is only when you condemn, compare, approximate, that other thoughts enter in.”

then we go back to this which was quoted by John and the other Dan then after...

I say that as long as thought had not been devastated by....itself..where an amazing thing takes place by itself which is to be able to somehow hear thoughts and not really listen..it is a sort of ability to let them be....can such capacity be turned on,as I see that as not an analytical capacity .
Yet I agree to say that, well, this is hard to say this is this and not that...really hard..

hard to say more so to explain...

Nevertheless it is very handy as a capacity hearing and yet not listening yet the meaning is understood...end of it..it seems to me that k seems to be talking about some analysing of thoughts..yet I don't think that this is what he means...

so I have the impression that what he talks about implies something else than thought.

Sorrow as a catalyst as done that...without "me" being involved as a creator in any of these "happenings"...yet being vital too at the same time, as who apart from "me" can renounce to itself under such pressure...that may be the all point that "me" is the trigger so has to reach its limits and understand by itself that it is limited and that this is a problem in some circumstances ,meaning here than when facing something it cannot understand it must shut itself up!! when since birth it has never done such "doing"

then later on yes, even positive desires will be somehow sort of self questioned too as contributing too to some pain..but again, not as a will to do so, but as a side effect of something else...

All this is a bit confused in words.

cheers...

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Mon, 06 Jul 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Jul 2015 #59
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 224 posts in this forum Offline

thanks for the last quote John....

which seems quite clear and sufficient in itself.

John Raica wrote:
The 'me' can never become a better 'me'. It will attempt to, it thinks it can, but the 'me' remains in subtle forms, hiding behind many garments, many structures. So there is only the ending of this selfishness, of the pain and sorrow which are the (active) content of the psyche, and that 'ending' does not require time.

again, it implies, clearly, something else than thought..

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jul 2015 #60
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 589 posts in this forum Offline

KRISHNAMURTI TO HIMSELF : ON THE ('PSYCHOLOGICAL' ?) FUTURE OF MANKIND

One wonders what is the future of mankind ? This 'future' is ( a modified continuation of?) what we are now. You see on television endless entertainment from morning until late in the night ; the entertainment of sport - thirty, forty thousand people watching a few people in the arena and shouting themselves hoarse. Or you watch some ceremony being performed in a great cathedral, and that too is a form of entertainment, a sentimental, romantic experience, a sensation of religiosity. Watching all this in different parts of the world, watching the human mind being occupied with (striving to earn a livelihood plus?) amusement, entertainment, sport, one must inevitably ask, if one is in any way concerned: what is the future (of human consciousness?) ? Probably you haven't given it much thought about (our collective) destiny, the result of our present way of life - as we said earlier, this 'future' is what you are now. If there is no t a deep change that is demanding your attention, your care, your affection – if there is not a fundamental change, then the future is ( already obvious in ?) what we are doing every day of our life in the present. One must enquire carefully into this word 'change'. Perhaps a better phrasing is : 'the ending of what is'. The ending, not the movement of changing 'what is' to 'what should be'. ( However?) when desire enters into the act of the ending, that desire becomes the cause of ending. Where there is a cause there is a motive and so there is no real ending at all.

The twentieth century has had a tremendous lot of changes produced by two devastating wars, the 'dialectical materialism', and the technological world which has brought about a great many changes, and when the computers (eventually) take over (the routine chores ?) what is going to happen to our human minds? When this whole industry of entertainment takes over, when the young people, the students, the children, are constantly instigated to pleasure, to romantic sensuality, the (deeper meaning of such words as ) restraint and austerity are pushed away, never even given a thought. You probably won't even listen to what the (spiritual ?) implications of austerity are. When you have been brought up from childhood to escape from yourself through entertainment and the psychologists saying that you must express everything you feel and that any form of restraint is leading to various forms of neuroticism, you naturally enter more and more into the world of sports, amusement, entertainment, all 'helping' you to escape from ( the actuality of?) what you are. The understanding of the nature of what you are, without any reactions to what you discover you are, is the beginning of austerity. The awareness, of every thought, every feeling, like watching a bird in flight - that ( free) watching brings about an extraordinary sense of austerity (sobriety?) that goes beyond all the fooling around with this ideas of self- improvement and self-fulfilment. In this watching there is ( an inner sense of?) great freedom and in that freedom there dignity of austerity. But ( unfortunately?) if you said all this to a 'modern' group of students or children, they would probably look out of the window in boredom because the ( temporal consciousness of the modern ?) world is bent on (biased by?) its own pursuit of pleasure.

It appears that man has always escaped from what he is, from where he is going, from ( fundamental questions as?) What all this is about ? – the ( meaning of the?) universe, of our daily life, of the dying and the beginning. It is strange that we have never realized that however much we may ( succeed to?) escape from ourselves, however much we may wander away consciously, deliberately or unconsciously, subtly, the ( deeper existential?) conflicts (brought by the pursuit of ?) pleasure, the pain, fear and so on are always there. And they ultimately dominate ( the temporal consciousness?) . You may try to push them away deliberately with an act of will but they surface again. And ( the instinctual seeking of) pleasure is one of the factors that predominate; it too has the same conflicts, the same pain, the same boredom. The weariness of pleasure and the fret is part of this turmoil of our life. You can't escape it, my friend. You can't escape from this deep unfathomed ( existential) turmoil unless there is a careful attention, a diligent watching of the whole 'movement of thought' and the 'self'. You may say all this is perhaps unnecessary. But if you do not pay attention to this the future of mankind is not only going to be more destructive, more intolerable but without much significance. All this is not a depressing point of view, it is actually so. What you 'are' (inwardly) now is what you 'will be' in the coming days. You can't avoid it. It is as definite as the sun rising and setting. This is the ( time-bound) share of all man, of all humanity unless each one of us change to something that is not projected by thought.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 07 Jul 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 329 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.)