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

Holistic Education


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 49 in total
Wed, 27 Sep 2017 #1
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

This is definitely the challenge for the education of the future- both for the educators and for those who are supposed to be educated. I would just like to start a serious dialogue with the proposition that any all-comprehensive education should be developped around the concept of an authentic self-knowledge - and in the context of the K Teachings we can find a lot of practical aspects and clues

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #2
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 98 posts in this forum Offline

I just spent a number of days with two children, one 5 and one 3 years old. And thinking about this subject of education for them and others. I don't know about K. schools, a little about Montessori and more about Waldorf ((Steiner). As for the effects of those on my children, now grown, I don't know of any, or can't see anything really different about how they developed except that they are both quite 'decent', caring people and quite creative in their own ways. How much of that is attributable to their education, I have no idea. But with these two little ones, what would be best for them to help bring about a harmonious development? I think 'awareness' is important: awareness of body, of movement, of color and form, of music, of dance ('sacred' and 'profane') , creative sensory awareness...I was with another granddaughter age 7 a while ago and sitting talking after breakfast one morning, she announced that she was "bored". So I half jokingly said "well let's just sit and be 'bored' together." That lasted a few minutes and then she said "you don't understand, children like to have fun and do things." OK but perhaps a class on 'boredom' might be an interesting idea...to see what it is all about,this so-called state that is so objectionable and which everyone seems to avoid like the plague. A 20 or 30 minute class that is totally boring. And discuss it. What does it mean: "I'm bored". Could have a positive effect to at least know what we're always running away from.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 28 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #3
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
That lasted a few minutes and then she said "you don't understand, children like to have fun and do things."

Well, Dan, maybe she had a point right there: a boring approach to...'boredom' is clearly not working for children of all ages. Not to mention that most 'adults' are inwardly less or more ...the same ( but perhaps a little more bored and more frustrated ?) children.
So, your totally sincere & authentic post opened up a whole 'bouquet' of closely related issues:

one: when talking of education- of the holistic kind or not, we automatically think of the education of others- children, adults with mental handicaps or serious problems, etc- but not of ourselves- we simply assume that we are already 'educated'- or at least that it's a 'work in progress'

two- and related to the first: our natural approach is starting from the 'known'. I remember Dr Bohm recalling one of his first dialogues with K - it was mostly about physics- and K suggested: ' Why don't you start with the 'unknown' ? So, even in educating young children it might be a good starting point to realise that in terms of direct inner experience we don't really know more than they do (while at the same time we are more prejudiced, having accumulated a vast second hand experience which is inevitably biased )

three - and related to the second- the only thing that could make a difference is our intention to learn- which most children have naturally. So, if our learning intention is authentic it does often gets communicated spontaneously. Perhaps not for an extended time but even a few seconds could represent an invaluable 'break point' (as in tennis)

and four - related to all the above- a certain sense of innocence or/and 'freedom from the known' is a definite must since without it...we're only 'faking it', pretending to discover 'new things' which in terms of a direct experiencing are already stale ( in other words, the salutary sense of being inwardly humble)

Of course, the above list is left open, but it does imply that we - and for ourselves in the first place - will have to start everything anew, from scratch. Pretty much like Dr Bohm and his unsolved ( Meta ?) 'Physics' problems & paradoxes.

But coming back to your grand daughter's totally sincere response, we should consider the possibility that the younger children are perhaps closer than many educated adults to a more direct mode of perception . So they just tell it 'like it is' - pretty much like K was also doing - except that there's no responsible follow up of their perceptions- "this thing is boring" is a final conclusion and they start looking for the next 'exciting' thing- and here the commercialised medias are most obliging in offering them a vast choice of 'non-boring' experiences (for a price, of course) And...that's all she wrote

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 29 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 #4
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 98 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
But coming back to your grand daugter's totally sincere response, we should consider the possibility that the younger children are perhaps closer than many educated adults to a more direct mode of perception . So they just tell it 'like it is' - pretty much like K was also doing - except that there's no responsible follow up of their perceptions- "this thing is boring" is a final conclusion and they start looking for the next 'exciting' thing-

The 'problem' with us is the problem that is created in childhood: the appearance of a 'self-image', isn't it?. The child is desperately looking for a way to 'fit in', to 'belong', to be liked, to be accepted, etc. This is when a lot of the damage is done isn't it? The hurts, the embarrassments, the mortifications...children are pretty much left to themselves on how this works out for each of them, without an understanding of what's going on. This is missing from their 'education'.

Also, I think there needs to be special consideration for the children at the extremes of the 'temperament' range, the very 'shy' and the very 'naughty' both of whom have probably the most 'possibilities'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 29 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 #5
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

Jess S wrote:
In most countries in the whole world professional teachers are in charge of what we understand as education these days so, of course, we understand that it's the children that must be educated, no?

Actually, in all countries, Jess. But this is the social demand and (openly or not) what they are actually being paid for is to achieve an acceptable degree of 'standardisation' for the children's consciousness. So, at best...they are very efficient & professional in doing this. At worst...they don't really care- as is in the pompously sounding 'French cultural exception'.

Now from this rather blunt realisation to sending them 'back to school' for a holistic kind of self-knowledge, is at least in our present stage of our cultural development ...an almost unaffordable luxury

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Oct 2017 #6
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 98 posts in this forum Offline

K:" When you feel responsible, you feel responsible for education of your children, not only your children ? children. Are you educating them to conform to a society, are you educating them to merely acquire a job? Are you educating them to the continuity of what has been? Are you educating them to live in abstractions, as we are doing now? So what is your responsibility as a father, mother, it doesn't matter who you are, responsible in education, for the education of a human being. That's one problem. What is your responsibility, if you feel responsible, for human growth, human culture, human goodness? What's your responsibility to the earth, to nature ? you follow? It is a tremendous thing to feel responsible"

Conversation with Alan Anderson

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Oct 2017 #7
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

Jess S wrote:
'Consciousness' is such a vastness to talk about!

It is indeed, Jess, but if my understanding is correct , K is using this term 'consciousness' almost exclusively in the 'experiential' sense- what one is actually conscious of - in other words what is the 'self' conscious of. The 'center' (of self-interest) , the 'I' is conscious of what is happening in the privacy of its inner world or in the outer world. Moreover, K is postulating that this 'inner' world (all we know about ourselves) is a mental reflexion of the outer material world.

As for a possible Universal or Intelligent dimension of our Consciousness he's often using holistically encrypted terms such as Mind, Truth, Silence, or... Otherness.
Of course, he seems to be doing this differentiation for a wider educational purpose- to avoid the traditional mind-traps of simply assuming that 'God is in you', or 'You are That', and so on

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Oct 2017 #8
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

So, talking about a 'holistic education' based on self-knowledge, where would we start ?

David Bohm was once pointing to the striking similarity of our brain - functioning in the 'thought mode'- with a film projector : the brain is projecting ( upon the inner screen of our consciousness) both the background as well as the action of the main character ( the 'thinking me') with all his 'thought' interactions, problems, successes. So, consciousness-wise we are the 'heroes ' acting on the screen, as well as the 'producers' and the fascinated viewer . In other words, our common awareness is (almost ?) totally or prioritarily focussed on this multiple interaction - so we are the directors, the projectors, the actors and the spectators of this never ending film of our life - from where the ancient idea of calling it all a (collective and/or personal) 'illusion'. In a certain sense, the film projected on the inner screen of our consciousness is in itself 'real' since the projection is actually taking place , but it is a 'virtual' or 'subjective' projected reality upon which our brain is working day & night.

Now, this may be a rather decent ( cross sectional) model of our our brain's psychological activity: most of our attention being focussed on the screen action, while the 'director-in -charge' is taking the liberty (aka : his free will ?) to optimise or change the ongoing scenario at any point (and we often forget...the 'viewer' or the 'witness' of it all). Intellectually speaking this could be only an oversimplified 'thought model' , were it not that.... 7 billion people are also doing ( or dreaming ?)along the same pattern , and the countless carefully written & supervised scenarios are often interfering or clashing with each other.

So much for the rationale of this novel approach to the human psyche. Now, experientially speaking, our brain may be (or not ???) willing, ready and able to 'detach' itself - at least temporarily from the overwhelming fascination (and self-implication ?) in the realisation, projection and viewing of this 'total reality' show. If yes, this could represent an invaluable first step in a meditation that is freeing the brain from its self-created illusion

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #9
Thumb_beautiful-nature-wallpaper pavani rao India 4 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica :
" So much for the rationale of this novel approach to the human psyche. Now, experientially speaking, our brain may be (or not ???) willing, ready and able to 'detach' itself - at least temporarily from the overwhelming fascination (and self-implication ?) in the realisation, projection and viewing of this 'total reality' show. If yes, this could represent an invaluable first step in a meditation that is freeing the brain from its self-created illusion "

Hi John

Yes one needs to DETACH oneself totally and completely from every attachment, one has cultivated over a long period of time ... every pattern needs to be broken , however noble and worthy it may sound and one had believed oneself into ... Knowledge gained either of studying philosophies of the world or the activity of mulling over K books again and again and again needs to be set aside .... if one is really , seriously keen on going into all these aspects of understanding which k pointed out .

Then it would be putting everything one had read in practice ... facing what one ' IS ' and ones life is .... not imagined one but the actual one .... however boring, monotonous and least interesting that may be ....

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #10
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 98 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Now, experientially speaking, our brain may be (or not ???) willing, ready and able to 'detach' itself - at least temporarily from the overwhelming fascination (and self-implication ?) in the realisation, projection and viewing of this 'total reality' show.

Is it this 'possible' exposing to itself, the illusion (prison) that, it, the brain has created, the action that 'evolution' can't or won't bring about, that sees no need to bring about?

K. "Truth is in the silent observation of what is, and it is truth that transforms what is."

Commentaries

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #11
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
K. "Truth is in the silent observation of what is, and it is truth that transforms what is."

“In a car you're always in a compartment, and because you're used to it you don't realize that through that car window everything you see is just more TV.”
(Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance – Robert M. Pirsig)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #12
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

pavani rao wrote:
Yes one needs to DETACH oneself totally and completely from every attachment

Even the one that says one needs to detach oneself totally from every attachment? Many more people have gotten attached to that perceived necessity than have actually done it. It could just be another empty 'should' you know, another attachment . . . literally, the attachment to end all attachments.

So, let's recognize it for the sentiment it is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #13
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

pavani rao wrote:

Yes one needs to DETACH oneself totally and completely from every attachment, one has cultivated over a long period of time ... every pattern needs to be broken , however noble and worthy it may sound and one had believed oneself into ... Knowledge gained either of studying philosophies of the world or the activity of mulling over K books again and again and again needs to be set aside .... if one is really , seriously keen on going into all these aspects of understanding which k pointed out .

Then it would be putting everything one had read in practice ... facing what one ' IS ' and ones life is .... not imagined one but the actual one .... however boring, monotonous and least interesting that may be ....

Re 13:

Dear Pavani,

But does one SEE that one IS attached? CAN one deliberately detach oneself? It can’t be done through will, determination, effort, choice, prayer, practice, etc., can it?

Can one even SEE the necessity of NOT being attached if one doesn't SEE that one is attached? Isn’t the important thing to SEE it?

If I hold to the belief that I am a rational, free thinker, unhindered by authority, fear or desire, then I may think that "attachment" doesn't apply to ME. Can I detach myself from the authority of the fear, desire, etc., which bind me if I don't understand that I am attached, if I don't acknowledge my fears and desires?

Being afraid of loneliness, I’m attached to my friends and family or to partying. Being afraid of ridicule, I’m attached to aloofness or anger. Being afraid of failure or boredom, I’m attached to drinking. Well, not necessarily exactly that, but attachment is directly related to fear, isn’t it? If I never face the fear, if I never see that I am attached to this and that, can attachment end?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #14
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But does one SEE that one IS attached? CAN one deliberately detach oneself?

K spoke quite a lot about detachment. His idea was that it was not the way. Quite the contrary, he thought one should be vigorously engaged with every aspect of life . . . vigorously and intelligently.

When I really understood what letting go of all attachments meant I saw that I was not willing to do it so I looked at the 'will' involved. Okay, I could see how I was uselessly attached to material things here and there, to ways of doing things, to expectations and so on, and the seeing of that is a constant thing one can do. One can be attentive to it all the time, so long as the tendency to attach remains one can be alert to it and to the dangers. But attachment to people? To friends, family, to one's children?

The easiest thing for most of us is to give up nationalism and religion. But look more carefully because we can condemn such attachments rather glibly, especially to the extent we do not ourselves have them. Easy to preach giving up nationalism when one is not a nationalist etc.

But will you give up your children, your partner? And how about ones ideas? The idea that one should detach is also rather persuasive if you are looking for the golden key to freedom and then it becomes a symbolic hope.

Why did the Buddha never vacuum? Because he lacked the attachments.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #15
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
But will you give up your children, your partner? And how about ones ideas? The idea that one should detach is also rather persuasive if you are looking for the golden key to freedom and then it becomes a symbolic hope.

Does the ending of attachment mean that one no longer cares about loved ones? Attachment is not love, is it? Being attached to my children means that I depend on them for something. If my son’s a doctor, I’m proud of him and brag about him. If he’s a pedophile, I dread others finding out about it. If he refuses to join in the army or to salute the flag, I’m ashamed. If he makes a billion dollars, I’m proud. If they "need" me, depend on me, even as adults, it might make me feel needed. My dependency on being “properly” reflected by the behaviour and achievements of my children is attachment, as I see it. I might believe it's love, but is it?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 06 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #16
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 13 posts in this forum Offline

As I see, Paul's larger point was on why such insight's reflected by ideas are not prompting an action, but instead circling around it by mutually cancelling out all opposing value systems and courting a position of 'nothingness'. A natural progression to action which the situation calls for is what is expected to follow.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #17
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 98 posts in this forum Offline

As long as the model is thought of as an 'attacher' and that which h/she is 'attached to', the deeper 'problem' is missed. That is, that there is no real duality here. The 'self' is its attachments. The 'self' can't 'detach' itself and become 'free'. The 'self' is the absence of freedom. It's not a matter of giving up this or that but of a 'dying' to the 'center', to the 'I' process which is behind the 'me' and the 'mine'. 'Personal' freedom is a myth, as I see it.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #18
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

Re 21 and 22:

Natarajan and Dan,

I can't tell if your posts were in response to me or to someone else. I find them hard to understand. It's ok with me, just letting you know.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #19
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 98 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I can't tell if your posts were in response to me or to someone else.

No I just wanted to bring up the idea that there is no 'attacher' separate from the 'attachments'. I thought it was important.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #20
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Does the ending of attachment mean that one no longer cares about loved ones?

I think the question deserves a serious consideration. First, what does the question imply . . . that one has "loved ones" which means special ones to love. Why is ones love then different for "loved ones" than for anyone else? What makes one person special to one while others are not if it is not attachment? This is a serious question which one has to go into. I hop-e you realise just how serious it is.

Huguette . wrote:
Attachment is not love, is it?

Quite so, but then is having "loved ones" actually love or attachment? It begs an answer, doesn't it? You can't have it both ways. The Jesus story attempted to get to grips with this when it had Jesus ask, "Who is my mother?"

Huguette . wrote:
My dependency on being “properly” reflected by the behaviour and achievements of my children is attachment, as I see it. I might believe it's love, but is it?

Your points are very clear here, Huguette, and I appreciate that, Thanks. A child is dependent on its parents or carers, right? But the parent also becomes unnaturally and psychologically dependent on the child and his/her outcomes. In fact the child has become a projection of the parent, or an extension of them, their desire to achieve, by proxy. But leave that aside for a moment. The child grows up and becomes independent. S/he can find and define his/her own means of existence now. What is the relationship between child and parent then? Is it not adult to adult? Well, it could be but we need the child to remain a child so that we remain the parent, even when he or she is way into adulthood, old age even, they are still "my child." We never quite allow our children to grow up because we fear losing the relationship of dependency and it is cross-generational, both the child and the parent enjoy the game.

But I am asking a slightly different question: Why do we have a 'special love' for one or two? Is it merely a repetition of the roles we have learned?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #21
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
courting a position of 'nothingness'

Well phrased, Natarajan. We court the position and we get caught in the pose. We have educated ourselves into a square circle :-)

(although I hope we haven't)

This post was last updated by Paul David son Fri, 06 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #22
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'self' can't 'detach' itself and become 'free'. The 'self' is the absence of freedom.

Correct . . . or maybe it is 'freedom to circulate within a circle.' K takes a very radical position in opposition to most philosophy when he denies that freedom can be circumscribed. He said that freedom is not relative. The suggestion is that it is either absolute or it is nothing. Take 'freedom of speech' as an example. But he also says that to be free does not mean to be without relationship. I cannot say that I agree with K but I do recognise the radical thrust of his argument.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #23
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

pavani rao wrote:
Then it would be putting everything one had read in practice ... facing what one ' IS ' and ones life is .... not imagined one but the actual one .... however boring, monotonous and least interesting that may be ....

Very true, Pavani. One major problem of living in this seriously troubled world is that our mind & brain is trying - perhaps not consciously- to settle down in the relative safety of the 'known' - from where the 'attachment: trying to make this sense of safety & protection last longer , from there the inevitable...boredom.
Now of course, this process is not irreversible, and generally speaking...it does not happen overnight. I believe there is this big misunderstanding of the K teachings, that this 'reverse' process is happening in no time. Starting the reversal process doesn't actually take thinking time but the laws of cause & effect are rather strict and intricate- some serious disentangling work may be required

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #24
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
The Jesus story attempted to get to grips with this when it had Jesus ask, "Who is my mother?"

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.... and don't feel obliged to tell me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #25
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
But I am asking a slightly different question: Why do we have a 'special love' for one or two? Is it merely a repetition of the roles we have learned?

Are you saying that there’s no such thing as love for one person, that love can only be impersonal, “love for all”? Are you saying that “love” for a child or for any one person can only be attachment or dependence, not love? What do you base this on? Why CAN’T love be personal and impersonal?

After all, love - whether it is personal or impersonal and whatever love IS - is not an idea. We understand that "love" which is based on an idea, or a pretense of love, an attachment or dependency which we call love --- is obviously not love. So we’re not in seeking out ideas about love, we’re talking about something that is actually felt …... but not a stomachache.

In discussing attachment #18, you asked “But will you give up your children, your partner?” So there can only be attachment and if one “gives up” the attachment (which one can’t do), then there can be no love for one’s children? You mentioned your granddaughter. Do you love her, have affection for her, care for her, or are you just attached, dependent?

If, as you suggest, love cannot be for the one, then I can only raise my child out of duty, without love. Not being loved hurts the child. Does that mean that, if there can't be love for the one, we are doomed to hurt all our children?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 06 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #26
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 98 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Paul David son wrote:

The Jesus story attempted to get to grips with this when it had Jesus ask, "Who is my mother?"

Huguette: Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.... and don't feel obliged to tell me.

I will take a shot at this because though it was a lot of years ago that I heard about this, it made a great impression. The story that I remember was that Christ was staggering along with the cross to his own crucifixion and he stumbled in the street. A woman rushed out to help him, it was his mother Mary... and Christ reportedly said to her: " What have I to do with thee, woman?"

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 07 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #27
Thumb_beautiful-nature-wallpaper pavani rao India 4 posts in this forum Offline

John : " One major problem of living in this seriously troubled world is that our mind & brain is trying - perhaps not consciously- to settle down in the relative safety of the 'known' - from where the 'attachment: trying to make this sense of safety & protection last longer , from there the inevitable...boredom. "

Hi John

Well the above statement of yours sound quite true , but at the same time one can't help wondering what's the ' troubled world ' to do with one's taking stock of ones activities of life ... May be you can go into a bit of elaborating if there are any other compelling reasons John , sorry I'm unable to understand if / whether there are reasons behind .

' change ' is at the core / root of K teaching , isn't it ? Well that doesn't mean that there will be amazing changes sprouting overnight in oneself . and to quote his own words , ' the path is arduous ' and it demands tremendous ' work ' on part of oneself to go into all those subjects regarding human life / consciousness he stressed time and again in his discussions and talks .

Yes I would say one makes conscious choice of stepping or taking a small step of distancing oneself from ones hurly burly day to day activities of life . when one sees the ' uselessness ' of repetitive actions of oneself .... and there is this fundamental precept of the teaching where in he says one needs to remain with inquiry or whatever questions that one has in mind . Since no one can give sufficient / satisfactory answers to another and one needs to come out with ones own work / findings ... certainly all that ' cracking ' work does need ' silence ' non - chattering mind .....

In fact this question comes to mind when every person is capable of criticizing , commenting on world affairs and the people next door so easily , effortlessly ..... then how when it comes to taking cognizance of oneself raises so many questions ? Coming out wth basic questions like what is effort and what is not effort and all that .... Well after spending so many years into all these K subjects one at least should have honesty to acknowledge where and whether one is ....

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #28
Thumb_beautiful-nature-wallpaper pavani rao India 4 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Hugette

Well it's been a while interacting with you . In fact often I feel appreciative of your posts which come out with lot of clarity and understanding . Coming to your above post and the issue / question raised ... frankly speaking it sounds more like a hypothetical one. ( hope you won't mind my stating ) may be based on my post addressed to John , you came out with the above one . The answer for that particular post addressed to John was he himself mentioned about ' detachment ' and some how it struck to me that he was referring to in terms of ' change ' which k speaks of in the teaching .

Well I feel its always better if and when one wants to share ones ' serious ' questions / inquiry related more to ones life and oneself rather than having discussions about hypothetical situations . Yes we do see people spending their life times without realizing the validity of anything . May be if that kind of inquiry / interest is not there in some one ... then why discuss about them ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #29
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 13 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
If, as you suggest, love cannot be for the one, then I can only raise my child out of duty, without love.

Huguette, is it not that love is in the uncompromising discharge of duty, as responsibility to the situation in hand, all the vigor and intelligence involved in the process.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #30
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
If, as you suggest, love cannot be for the one, then I can only raise my child out of duty, without love.

natarajan shivan wrote:
Huguette, is it not that love is in the uncompromising discharge of duty, as responsibility to the situation in hand, all the vigor and intelligence involved in the process.

Natarajan,

Maybe. As I see it, responsibility can be the unfragmented response (not reaction) of love or compassion. Love responds spontaneously and without aforethought to the suffering or need of another human being. That responsibility is engendered by love.

Or responsibility can also be the equivalent of “duty”, a reaction of thought, an obligation engendered or determined by thought.

We can only look inwardly and see what’s actually there. Only the heart-mind can see directly what’s inside, no? I mean, it’s not for “me” to tell “you” (and vice-versa) whether or not “your” actions are rooted in love. Do we want to quibble over vocabulary? We were looking into the question of whether love can only be for all and not for one. You are now asking whether duty can be the response of love. What need is there to relate love to duty? Is love for the one, personal love, NOT love?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 49 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.)