Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Alanna E's Forum Activity | 8 posts in 2 forums


8 posts  |  Page 1 of 1
Forum: General Discussion Wed, 25 Nov 2009
Topic: Thought and the physical.

Hello! I am a newcomer.

Someone suggested to me that it is futile and impossible to attempt to alter thought, to suppress its cyclical, habitual movement. This accords with the idea that effort and striving is fruitless, merely another violent distraction; one fragment warring with another, struggling to dominate in pursuit of a specific aim! From this suggestion, the notion arose that dealing entirely with observing the physical is the only plausible option. I am not stating this as a fact, but rather as something intriguing that was examined in a recent dialogue. The person with whom I was discussing claimed that, in their experience, the factuality of their body and its mechanics allowed them to explore a new kind of awareness; the movement of energy through the body, its blockages, its most basic requirements; they said, "Take the body and the mind will follow", as though increased awareness of the physical would make the patterns of the mind easier to sit with and observe. Also there was the suggestion that thought itself was physical.

I realise that I have perhaps explained this poorly, or in such a way that the substance is lost or obscured; for this I apologise (my own head is often so muddled that it is at times quite difficult to say what I think I mean, haha!). But what I am wondering is this: does anyone here have anything to add, to explore further in relation to the physical, whether through meditation or related experience? What does one think of thought as being energy in the same way that the body is energy? I vaguely recollect K saying something like, "The energy benefits from having a sharp instrument to pass through as opposed to a dull one", though not in those precise words!

Forum: Insights Thu, 26 Nov 2009
Topic: melody and rhythm of life looking for harmony!

I really enjoyed this post, and although I am not qualified to make a particularly valid response, I can say with some timid certainty that I have had a glimpse of silence as music; not as a component, but, as ganesan balachandran has said, as music itself. Being a lowly music student, I feel that I will never learn all there is to know of music, and that is a great thought!

Once I was watching some film or another, very sparse and meditative, when the beginnings of Arvo Part's famous piece 'Spiegel im Spiegel' began to play, and immediately I was captivated by the silence in it, how it seemed to envelope every note, as though sound and lack of sound were interacting, or were in fact the same thing, a part of each other. I felt suddenly aware of something about music that I had not previously noticed.

Something else that has interested me is the way the human responds to music. Occasionally it can be an emotional response, anchored in old associations; that is not what intrigues me, but rather those times when you hear a piece of music and it is like a shock to the system, beautiful but quite nameless and unemotional, the same feeling one might get from reading a poem or looking at a mountain, as if suddenly brought to the moment for one fleeting second, suddenly "in harmony".

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 06 Mar 2010
Topic: Can you live in society without conditioning?

Do you think that it is possible to live in society, to interact and communicate with others, if you are not conditioned?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 07 Mar 2010
Topic: Can you live in society without conditioning?

Randal Shacklett wrote:

Everyone is conditioned/programmed. Can one act sanely, in spite of condition, might be a better question.

Yes, I think that's a very good question! I could ask, Is it possible to live without conditioning?, but I think that it is really not possible for the self to not be conditioned and therefore anything outside of conditioning would probably be outside the realm of thought, of self. I don't know. But I think that is a great question, whether we can live simply and sanely in spite of being conditioned, if it is indeed the case that the self cannot shake off the very conditioning that appears to constitute it.

Ah, I just confuse myself. I am very glad to have read these responses though. David Louks, your great reply made a lot of things much clearer for me, so I thank you sincerely!

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 07 Mar 2010
Topic: WHAT IS TEACHING OF K

Chafia Abdi wrote: Hello there If I may intervene, Isn't thought the activity of the self. I can not stop thinking, I can watch thinking and observe it.

Hello! I think that is a really good statement. I can observe thinking, but I do not think that I am divisible from thought; I am the thought that I am watching. I think Krishnamurti spoke about this - the "observer is the observed".

I think Krishnamurti's basic teaching is about letting go of time and living in the "now". But I am quite silly so maybe I have missed the point. It will be interesting to hear what others have to say.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 09 Mar 2010
Topic: Can you live in society without conditioning?

Randal Shacklett wrote: The self and conditioning, are not two seperate phenomenon, so no, it isn't possible.

Yes, exactly.

There seems to be a certain degree of hostility in this thread, unless I have misinterpreted it. I am sorry if I have caused annoyance in whatever way by having started and contributed to the topic.

I hope everyone is well. :)

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 10 Mar 2010
Topic: Can you live in society without conditioning?

I see that I am conditioned. I can practice the pretence of dropping out of society by removing myself to the wilderness to live like Thoreau or retiring into uninterrupted solitude like a hermit, but as society is inseparate from myself, is within me, to do this with the purpose of leaving it behind is fruitless. The fear that conditioning arises out of is still there, the fear of the idea of death that makes me try to boulster the self with every action and word, always defending and building it up against potential termination, unspeakably terrified of 'letting go' in any way.

Perhaps the initial question of whether we can or cannot live in society without conditioning is silly. I am not even sure what I meant by it. Krishnamurti said, "I am talking of an aloneness, in which the mind is totally free from the past, and only such a mind is virtuous, for only in this aloneness is there innocence. Perhaps you will say, "That is too much to ask. One cannot live like that in this chaotic world, where one has to go to the office every day, earn a livelihood, bear children, endure the nagging of one's wife or husband, and all the rest of it." But I think what is being said is directly related to everyday life and action; otherwise, it has no value at all", and that is what prompted me to ask, out of curiousity as to people's responses.

It may have been better to ask if it is really possible to live in society with complete constant attention so that we see the conditioned mind at work; asking if we can live in society without being conditioned is probably a bit crazy, considering we can hardly know what not being conditioned actually is. It is sort of like trying to see what it is like outside of a windowless room without wanting to open the door.

And now I'd better stop rambling before I confuse this addled head of mine even more. Sorry this is so long!

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 11 Mar 2010
Topic: Can you live in society without conditioning?

dhirendra singh wrote: Personally, I read and reply here for an interesting entertainment like actitivity, I am not a bit hopping for any enlightenment through this.

Thank you for the reply! I agree very much.

...

A bird, instinctively, builds a nest. It doesn't have an emotional attachment to the nest; it doesn't have an image of what the nest was yesterday or of what it will be in the future; it doesn't say, This is my nest that I have created, or judge the nest as good or bad, or think that it is a very superior bird for having made something so fine. At least, this is how it appears to me. I have felt that, in nature, there is no place for artificial, psychological time. Just sitting outside for a few hours and watching the doves come and go, eating seed, with such unhurriedness, you can really see this. But we're always looking for the nearest distraction because we're scared of being still, and if we built something as a bird constructs a nest we would identify with it and see an image of it belonging to time. The animal can do something mechanical like build a nest without there being any psychology involved; it is in the present; can't we do the same? I don't think of conditioning when I think of doing something physical, practical, like knowing how to walk or hammer a nail. It's when I have an image surrounding these acts that I feel conditioning comes into play.

8 posts  |  Page 1 of 1