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

Holistic Education

Displaying posts 31 - 33 of 33 in total
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #31
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 9 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
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?

Yes, that's right, it's not for each of us to demand it from the other. However, the issue is that, the inward freedom we think we possess can still be used to rationalize the outward conformity, i.e. with the environment. The result is the smothering of our vitality to question again our habitual adaptation with the environment. Say, our so called personal love might even be an excuse to avoid such questioning, not that it isn't love.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 #32
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Perhaps it is never too late for us to mention this 'little something' which is the active principle of any 'holistic' education : love.
In fact the concept itself is so comprehensively 'holistic' that it includes everything that was, is and will be the active ingredient of any education deserving its name.

Most of us are familiar with K's roundabout descriptions of what love is not : Love is not sensation; it is the flame without smoke and... is not the word 'love' itself- now usedindiscriminately as an upgrade for 'like' , it is not thought, it is not attachment... etc. But then, what is love ?
K's tacit assumption was probably that once we reject all that is not love - and if we are lucky ?- we may experientially come upon the 'real thing'.

Now, after this morning's meditation, all that came up as a 'positive' definition for Love was: A state of All-Oneness - inwardly in the first place, but also extending outwardly. And...that's all she wrote

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 10 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
2 days ago #33
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Here is a very good example of K's holistic approach in the context of adult education ( this 'reader friendly' edited text comes from K's Commentaries on Living' first series (cca 1954 ?)


( Listener friendly intro:) We know so little of ourselves; we know (the outward facts?) , but we do not understand (their inner meaning?) ; we 'know', but we have no ( sense of an authentic) communion with another. We can never (completely) 'know' another, what we know is the dead past, not the living. To be aware of the living, we must 'bury' the dead (residues of the past?) in ourselves. We have ( a lot of) informations and ( knowledgeable?) conclusions about so many things; but there is no ( sense of inner) happiness, nor a peace that is not stagnant. Our ( inner) lives are dull and empty, or so full of words and activity that it blinds us. Knowledge is not wisdom, and without wisdom there is no inner peace, no ( creative) happiness.

He was a young man, a professor of some kind, dissatisfied, worried and burdened with responsibilities. He had been well educated, he said - which was mostly a matter of knowing how to read and gathering information from ( the ww web or from ?) books. He stated that he had been to as many of the ( K) talks as he could, and went on to explain that for years he had been trying to give up ( even the simple habit of?) smoking, but had never been able to give it up entirely. This was one of his (psychological) problems, one among ( many?) others. He was intense, nervous and thin.

K: Do we ( insightfully?) understand anything if we condemn it? The very condemnation or acceptance is an avoidance of the problem.

Q: I have condemned myself for smoking, over and over again. It is difficult not to condemn.

K: Yes, it is difficult not to condemn (our psychologial attachments?) , for our (traditional ) conditioning is based on denial, justification, comparison and resignation. This is our ( cultural) background, the ( mental screen of?) conditioning with which we approach every problem. This very conditioning breeds (an additional) inner conflict (btw 'what is' and 'what should be'?) You have tried to rationalize away the habit of smoking, have you not? You have thought it all out and come to the conclusion that it is 'stupid'. And yet , your rationalization has not made you give it up. We think that we can be free from a problem by knowing its ( visible?) causes; but this 'knowing' is merely an (intellectual) conclusion. This (intellectual ?) knowledge obviously prevents (the insightful?) understanding of the problem. Knowing the ( superficial?) causes of a problem and ( experientially?) understanding the problem are two entirely different things.

Q: But how else can one approach such a ( dependency ?) problem?

K: That is what we are going to find out. When we discover what the false approach is, we shall be aware of the (holistic?) approach. The understanding of the false (our dualistic approach?) is the discovery of the true. To see the false as false is 'arduous' (a very delicate issue?) . We look at the 'false' (eg : attachments, habits, etc?) through comparison, through the measure(ment) of thought; but can the 'false' be seen as such through any thought process? Is not thought itself conditioned and so false?

Q: But then, how can we know the false as false without the ( backing of the?) thought process?

K: This is our whole trouble (the experiential difficulty?) , is it not? When we use thought to solve a problem, surely we are using an ( outwardly tuned ?) instrument which is not at all adequate (inwardly) ; for thought itself is a product of the ( outward ?) past human experience. ( In order to ?) to see ( inwardly ?) the false as false, thought must become aware of itself as a 'dead' (mechanistic?) process. Thought can never be free (to see inner things directly?) , and therefore there must be a freedom from thought (in order) to discover ( the inner truth about anything?)

Q: I don’t quite see what you mean.

K: One of your (many particular?) problems is (the habit of?) smoking. You have approached it with condemnation, or you have tried to rationalize it away. This approach is 'false' (inadequate ?) . How do you discover that ( this approach is?) false? Surely, not through ( the dualistic process of?) thought, but by being passively watchful of how you approach that (particular) problem. Such passive inward watchfulness does not demand thought; on the contrary, if thought is functioning there can be no ( authentic?) passivity. Thought 'functions' only to condemn or justify, to compare or accept; but if there is a passive ( non-personal?) watchfulness of this process, then it (the habit of smoking?) is perceived as what it ( actually) is.

Q: Yes, I see that; but how does this apply to my ( habit of?) smoking?

K: Let us experiment together to find out if one can approach the problem of ( one's suliminal attachment to?) 'smoking' without ( thought's interferences of ?) condemnation, comparison, and so on. Can't we look at this whole problem ( of psychological dependency?) afresh, without the past overshadowing it? We seem unable to be aware of it passively, there is always some kind of response from the past. It is interesting to see how incapable we are of observing the problem as though it were 'new'. We carry along with us ( the psychological burden of?) all our past efforts, conclusions, intentions; we cannot look at the problem except through these 'curtains' (mental screens?) .
( In terms of direct perception?) no problem is ever old, but we ( prefer to play safe and ?) approach it with the ( good ?) old (way with mental ?) formulations, which prevent the (insightful?) understanding of it.

( For homework : Try to ?) Be passively watchful of these ( controlling mental ?) responses. Just be passively aware of them, see ( the actual truth?) that they cannot solve the problem. The ( actual ?) problem is real, but the ( 'what is' vs 'what should be' ?) approach is utterly inadequate. The inadequate response to ( the actuality of) 'what is' breeds ( its own ) conflict; and this (secondary?) conflict is the ( deeper aspect of the?) problem. If there is an (integrated?) understanding of this whole process, then you will find that you can act adequately ( even) with regard to ( your irrational dependency to such a costly habit as ?) smoking.

This post was last updated by John Raica 2 days ago.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 33 of 33 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.)