Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Paul David son's Forum Activity | 11 posts in 1 forum


11 posts  |  Page 1 of 1
Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 06 Oct 2017
Topic: Holistic Education

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)

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 06 Oct 2017
Topic: Holistic Education

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.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 06 Oct 2017
Topic: Holistic Education

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.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 06 Oct 2017
Topic: Holistic Education

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?

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 06 Oct 2017
Topic: Holistic Education

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)

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 06 Oct 2017
Topic: Holistic Education

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.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Mon, 11 Jun 2018
Topic: Holistic Education

Dan McDermott wrote: K: " . . . it is not only me that suffers but mankind."

'Not only' is a key phrase here. To have said "It is not me but . . . " would have been to discount that each of us feels it as well as it being common.

Dan McDermott wrote: but the 'Pain' is not 'mine'.

That being the confluential point. When someone is cruel with you, do you hold onto it as your own? If you do you are likely to then pass it on, from one to the other, making the chain. To understand that psychological hurt only turns to suffering when you take ownership of it and possess it, creates the possibility of breaking the chain.

An example of which might be when you blame your parents for what you are or what you became. Your parents were working with the material their own parents presented them with, albeit changed in some ways. The question is, are you able to break the chain, stop blaming and start acting? If not, you only change the form of the problem and you pass on the same problem in changed form to your offspring.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 12 Jun 2018
Topic: Holistic Education

Isn't this where compassion comes in?

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 13 Jun 2018
Topic: Holistic Education

Dan McDermott wrote: When (or if) it's seen that 'our' troubles, 'our' travails, 'our' hardships, 'our' anguish, 'our' fear is not 'ours' at all but the "stream" of human suffering of which you/I are a part...that everyone goes through what we are going through, it dissolves the wall of self pity that confines our sorrow to only ourself. That dissolution is compassion, isn't it?

Insofar as the "wall of self-pity" is dissolved through this understanding, then we can call both the process of understanding and dissolution 'compassion' as well as the results.

The problem is however, that in daily life the understanding falls back and the routine of self-pity prevails. We have insightful moments but they fall away. I think that for the rest of the time we are more or less comfortable in our discomfort. We have become accustomed to it and to dealing with it in other ways such that the challenge to renew our understanding takes second place to our habits.

So long as the mind is fragmented, the insights do not hold for long. Isn't that the tragedy!

And K said there is no method or practice suited to transforming the situation.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 13 Jun 2018
Topic: Holistic Education

Dan McDermott wrote: if I 'desire' them to be continuous there is a certain 'greed' in that isn't there?

Right Dan. You cannot desire an insight to be permanent. Maybe what one desires is the ability to be permanently attentive so that the insights come as and when needed, naturally. But that is also a folly because you cannot make yourself permanently attentive.

K suggests dealing with the substantive matters that he says limit your attention to what is and bend your attention towards escapes. But that also demands the very attention we so evidently lack. That's quite funny.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Thu, 14 Jun 2018
Topic: Holistic Education

Dan McDermott wrote: That's why I suppose, the 'whole thing' has to be seen instantly. When thought/time enters, it all gets twisted into knots.

I know the sense of it, Dan, and I see the logic. But I kinda jump nowadays when I hear or read the word 'instantly.' It reminds me of the old storybooks where it is written of the hero, "In one leap he was free."

Maybe you're right, it can't be any other way, but that does not lead me any nearer the conclusion that the 'one leap' is any kind of possibility either. I mean, I have to admit, I am stumped for an answer.

As tantalising as the idea of seeing something 'instantly' is, I imagine that if I were to have told K that I'd seen it 'instantly' but nothing had changed he'd have said that I hadn't see it 'instantly' enough. :-)

11 posts  |  Page 1 of 1