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

Evolution


Displaying posts 61 - 72 of 72 in total
Wed, 27 Sep 2017 #61
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 687 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
the "revolution" IS the ending of 'time' as a factor of 'becoming' anything.

Could it be, Dan, the ending of our ages old habit of thinking about our fragmentary 'psychological' condition terms of time ? This is obviously an identitary sub-division of the thought process. We can look in a detached way at other people's 'ego-becoming' - and very often it does seem ridiculously limited. But the same becoming process could be the only 'real life' modality for the human brain to order its real-time actions and relationships: if you want a good crop for the next year, you'd better start preparing for it now. The same logic is naturally extended to our psychological condition - not very good right now, but by straightening up some older actions, habits, conditionings, we can make it better . And it does work pretty well in some physical compartments- losing weight, dropping some bad habits, creating new and healthier ones- there is a vast open field for self-improvement. But the 'identitary ' core of our consciousness is -generally speaking- never questioned. It is not just 'becoming' but it also 'is'.

So, at this point we can bravely accept the K challenge (of ending 'time') or simply ignore it, since our physical life will go on anyway. The deeper existential question is : yes, but with what quality ? The actual condition of a life spent in ego-centric temporal continuity is obviously one of slower or faster decay & degradation, due to additive nature of our conflicts and/or other neglected psychological problems. What happens is that the original ( as in 'original sin' ?) division 'observer-observed' is engendering many other co-lateral fragmentations- us vs them, now vs then , etc...

And at this point we're at a major existential crossroad: do we automatically accept the old mental patterns of 'survival at any price' ? or, we're taking some 'quality time' (sic...) to contemplate whether we have other 'psychological' options ? And this option of 'free choice' is purely individual, since in terms of our collective consciousness the option of 'survival ( +/-) at any price is still... a 'no brainer'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Oct 2017 #62
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 60 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
not 'move away' from what you are, ( whatever you are ) and to be fully, wholly, 'what you are',

How does one "try" that, Dan?

You are what you are. You are already what you are. You cannot in any way be other than you are. So, what is there to try? Even when you are trying to move away from what you are, that is also what you are, you are someone who tries to move away. But listen, you cannot stop moving any more than a chicken can stop laying eggs.

When you 'try' to stop moving, you are trying to be as you are by not being as you are. So all the words come to nothing once more. Which is also what you are.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Oct 2017 #63
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 60 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
to be fully, wholly, 'what you are', transforms that state into 'what you are not'.

Cute but . . .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Oct 2017 #64
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 60 posts in this forum Offline

The problem is that you cannot be "wholly" what you are because you are not "whole."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Oct 2017 #65
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 60 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
You want a 'method'?

No, but when someone asks me to try something I ask what it is they want me to try. You said to try being oneself. Well, one is oneself so why is there any need for trying?

Dan McDermott wrote:

Paul David son wrote:

The problem is that you cannot be "wholly" what you are because you are not "whole."

Not true.

Seems true to me, Dan. To tell someone to be "wholly" who they are has the explicit assumption that they are whole, which means in this case to be integrated of mind. We are not. To be as you are must mean what it says, Dan. We are fragmented. But okay, you go on . . .

Dan McDermott wrote:
But forget "wholly" or "fully" if that is a problem for you

No, it is not my personal problem but the problem for humanity. Neither is it a matter of choosing the right word. It seems to me Dan that you are offering a method and that I am questioning it. And you continue . . .

Dan McDermott wrote:
.just try to 'be' what you are, whatever that is.

I am a fragmented human being. I do not have to try to be so. I am so. The extra problem arises when I try to be whole.

I think at the bottom of our difference here is an idea, the idea that at the bottom of everything, one is whole. I say we are not whole, we are fragmented. The "be as you are" is a rotten cliche that I have read from every guru I have ever encountered or read about. Chopra says it. The Maharishi said it. They all trot it out. They all pass it off as wisdom with a sweet smile as if they are giving you something. It is empty and vague.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Oct 2017 #66
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 11 posts in this forum Offline

Paul,

Who tries to be a fragmented human being? I think no one tries to be THAT. Who tries to be whole? What does trying to be whole even mean?

But don't I try to be calm when I’m anxious; not to be angry or afraid when I’m angry or afraid; not to be jealous when I’m jealous; to be humble when I’m vain; and so on? That’s where the effort not to be what I am can be seen.

If there is a flame of interest to understand "what is", a flame of discontent, isn't that flame the effortless awareness of what I am and of my efforts not to be what I am (or to be what I am not)? And being aware of what I am, acknowledging it, facing it without resistance, does change it, doesn't it?

When I try not to be angry, when I try to resolve anger, anger cannot understood.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Oct 2017 #67
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 60 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It's not about "trying to be whole", it is trying to be what you 'are' and being 'aware' of that.

And I asked, why try to be what you are? You are what you are without trying. I just don't get your point, Dan.

I agree that people try to be what they are not but I say that that is also what they are. They are people trying to be what they are not. Look at your argument with care and you see that wherever it goes it ends up in a circle.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Oct 2017 #68
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 60 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Paul,

I agree with all you wrote, Huguette.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Oct 2017 #69
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 60 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
And being aware of what I am, acknowledging it, facing it without resistance, does change it, doesn't it?

Except that. To acknowledge what you are does not change what you are in any fundamental sense. All that has changed is the acknowledgement.

You are always changing, Huguette. You do not stop changing. But the fundamental change K spoke of cannot be the result of acknowledging what you are. Were it the case many of us would have undergone the psychological revolution he preached. To say, 'be who you are and thereby become what you are not' is as dumb as it sounds, a simplistic recipe that all the gurus have preached for one hundred years and which has resulted in nothing.

'Be who you are' is meaningless for the very reason that you cannot be anything other than you are. And it is a sly way of promising that there is an easy road to becoming what you are not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Oct 2017 #70
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 60 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
being with whatever state you're in actually transforms it

which is quite different from saying . . .

Dan McDermott wrote:
"Being 'what you are', and being aware of it transforms that state into 'what you are not'.

Being with a state you are in and not trying to end it by will, means to stay with that state so that it can be seen for what it is ever more clearly and that has the potential to alter the state without any more being done. There is no suggestion in that of trying to be what you are and there is no suggestion that by doing so one becomes what one is not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Oct 2017 #71
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 11 posts in this forum Offline

75:

Paul David son wrote:
To acknowledge what you are does not change what you are in any fundamental sense. All that has changed is the acknowledgement.

Even though our birth, life, death and the universe are beyond the full comprehension of our limited brain, we confidently ascribe many “shoulds” and “what should be’s” to our life, without any basis for it other than our conditioning. I see "myself" and my life as my personal domain - separate from the mysterious wholeness of the universe - because I am conditioned to see it that way. These “shoulds” and “what should be’s” of our conditioning are at the root of fear, and fear is at the root of anger, bitterness, jealousy, desire, depression, our pursuit of pleasure, and so on.

So that the causes against which my anger is directed and the explanations that I attribute to my anger come from my conditioning. Being based on conditioning, they are false.

But if I look "head on" at anger as it arises, without any movement of escape or resistance, without justifying it or trying “not to be” it, I am acknowledging the whole process of it. Then I understand anger. I see the falseness of the ideas and assumptions on which it is based, in which it is rooted. When the cause and explanations for my anger are seen to be false, I naturally no longer try not to BE angry. The feeling of anger etc. may still arise but it is understood and not resisted or escaped. It is not the springboard for action.

I’m not saying it is so. That’s how I see it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Oct 2017 #72
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 11 posts in this forum Offline

75:

Paul David son wrote:
'Be who you are' is meaningless for the very reason that you cannot be anything other than you are. And it is a sly way of promising that there is an easy road to becoming what you are not.

Also .... :-)

Paul,

I agree that you cannot be anything other than what you are - i.e. afraid, angry, bitter, vain, selfish, a pleasure-seeker, etc. I might repress or try to hide what I am, but the compulsions, obsessions, fears and desires remain in consciousness so that nothing really is fundamentally changed by this.

If effort cannot alter “what I am”, can there BE transformation? Maybe not. Is there anything more worthy of looking into? Maybe “transformation” sounds pretentious but that is what is needed, isnt it? - not merely to somewhat modify, alter, reorganize, refine or polish “what I am” - which obviously doesn't refer to our profession, wealth, likes and dislikes, manners, dress, speech, status, and so on. We’re talking about our compulsions and fears, the things which make us suffer and which constrain us.

Do we approach the question (of transforming “what I am”) through our knowledge, ideas, beliefs, conclusions, etc.? Can it be approached without relying on the authority of knowledge?

“Be what you are” is not a cunning, misleading promise, as I see it. K said that it is hard work, arduous. And it IS arduous to observe and learn about the workings of one’s mind, without thought interfering.

“Be what you are” means JUST be what you are without trying to change it, without pretending not to be it. Just be it and be aware of it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 72 of 72 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.)