A beginner’s mind

[voyager]

@rickScott

Sounds like you are saying the irrational and the overrational are the same-ish? Please elaborate.

Not at all. I said “is irrational or overational”. That means that actually I don’t know from where it comes from. It can be one or the other.

[James]

I think, Inquiry, I have a different approach to you.

I listen to (or read) what K and others are saying, and I don’t draw a conclusion about it one way or the other.

I don’t personally feel such a strong resistance to considering the proposal that K makes, and I don’t wish to immediately foreclose it by reducing it to a conclusion (as you seem to be doing) or by saying “I cannot do it”, “It cannot be done”, etc (which you also seem to be doing).

For example, you reduce what K says to

@Inquiry

resistance is futile and prolongs agony. Surrender now

But this (for me) misses the emotional register of what K is communicating. When K says to hold one’s psychological state “like a baby”, or “like a jewel”, etc, and suggests looking at it in such a way that you feel part of it, sensitive to it, willing to play with it, feel it out from within, etc - this communicates to me a quality of emotional openness, not the closure you interpret it to mean.

When you say

@Inquiry

We’re here to talk about our resistance to what K was communicating

I don’t feel this is true for me. I find perpetual resistance to what K and others suggest a complete waste of time and energy. I am here to consider openly what K and others have to say, and to feel out for myself whether it has value or truth in it, for me. Because if I really see or feel the truth of something, then I won’t resist it.

But I can’t see or feel the truth of something if my attitude is to draw premature conclusions about it, saying it is impossible, etc.

So I would rather stay open, and look at it afresh, as though for the first time.

This is my attitude at least.

[Inquiry]

@James

But this (for me) misses the emotional register of what K is communicating. When K says to hold one’s psychological state “like a baby”, or “like a jewel”, etc, and suggests looking at it in such a way that you feel part of it, sensitive to it, willing to play with it, feel it out from within, etc - this communicates to me a quality of emotional openness, not the closure you interpret it to mean.

I don’t disagree.

I am here to consider openly what K and others have to say, and to feel out for myself whether it has value or truth in it, for me.

Was what K had to say so complicated, so complex, so incomprehensible that after years of studying it, we are still students? Or could it be my resistance to the prospect of not being who I think I am that makes it a life-long endeavor?

I am here to consider openly what K and others have to say, and to feel out for myself whether it has value or truth in it, for me.

If you’re sure of this, it’s dubious. I don’t trust what I’m sure of if it isn’t self-evidently or demonstrably true.

[James]

@Inquiry

I don’t trust what I’m sure of if it isn’t self-evidently or demonstrably true.

There is a fine line between intelligent doubt and being habitually skeptical. Habitual skepticism is a form of self defence. It is not intelligent.

I don’t feel that what K (and others) are suggesting requires trust, hope, or any of these other similar terms. It requires being open.

Remember, the topic of this thread is what it means to have a beginner’s mind. This means to look at things afresh, not with conclusions, not with tired eyes or merely skeptical eyes.

So, in this context, the facts we have been discussing (which do not require trust) are all the myriad forms of psychological dissonance we may have: insecurity, confusion, fear, envy, sorrow, hurt, irritation, anger, hatred, etc. These are factual states (when they are present). And the question we have been asking is what is an intelligent way of approaching such states?

(We have also been discussing outward looking, and being vulnerable to the “impact of reality” outwardly - but this is a slightly different, though related, issue).

K has suggested what he has suggested. The quotes are all there to read (and not reduce to mental conclusions of one’s own).

Now, one can be open to looking at these suggestions of K, with fresh eyes. Or one can argue endlessly about secondary issues and waste energy there.

And I don’t want to spend anymore energy on these secondary issues. I am tired of arguing about these things.

If you want to start a thread about the self or ego, and how this is blocking you from looking as though for the first time, then go ahead. But this thread has a slightly different approach which I hope you can respect.

Is this ok with you?

[rickScott]

@Inquiry

Was what K had to say so complicated, so complex, so incomprehensible that after years of studying it, we are still students? Or could it be my resistance to the prospect of not being who I think I am that makes it a life-long endeavor?

Great question! I think it would make a good new thread. (Hint, hint.) If after 20+ years of ‘hanging around Krishnamurti’ you (I, we) haven’t gotten it, what does that say about us and it?

[James]

@rickScott

I think it would make a good new thread.

If I could suggest Rick, rather than - in the butterfly manner we are wont to do - starting another thread and moving away from what we have been attempting to explore on this one, could we actually look at and remain with this present discussion without going off into secondary directions?

[rickScott]

You just suggested it, goofy! (Note: Goofy is affectionate.) I was echoing your suggestion:

@James

If you want to start a thread about the self or ego, and how this is blocking you from looking as though for the first time, then go ahead.

[James]

So, for instance, we can take this question you have asked, and ask it here, in the context of the discussion where it arose. The question being:

@rickScott

If after 20+ years of ‘hanging around Krishnamurti’ you (I, we) haven’t gotten it, what does that say about us and it?

The context of this question here is the suggestions made by K (which I mentioned earlier to Inquiry) which involve the challenge of remaining with difficult or unpleasant psychological states (such as hurt, sorrow, fear, envy, greed, confusion, insecurity, etc).

Now why do we find remaining with these states so difficult?

[James]

Did you read the quotes I shared on post 143?

Did you read what I wrote to you about dissonance and awareness?

This is the context of the challenge of remaining with inner psychological states we are looking into. This is something we can look at here and now.

[voyager]

@rickScott

Great question! I think it would make a good new thread.

There is already a thread on this topic dating jul 2020, where Inquiry partecipated:

Why Don't We Change After All These Years?

I reflected a bit about what “being serious” could mean (putting aside definitions of course). It came to my mind that essentially being serious means really wanting to do something and not only agreeing with K. or being convinced by his words. The point behind it is that when one really wants to do something one does it. I remember K. saying: “when you want to climb a mountain (or something equally difficult) you do it. So, the problem often is that we are not serious because we don’t want to…

[James]

And this, I feel, is the most pertinent reply you made on that thread, which I feel is relevant here:

@voyager

We must be aware that in this problem of change there are two levels:

the first natural reaction when one sees one’s own limits and faults is that of changing the situation which disturbs us, like an attachment or hurt. And our common approach to this problem of change is trying to achive an ideal situation negletting or escaping from the ongoing stituation. As we all know this approach does not work, yet it’s a compulsive reaction.

K suggested a completely different approach: that of remaining with the problem in order to have a deep understanding of its nature and roots. According to him this will produce a change in our psyche, breaking the pattern which caused the problem. This is the second level.

When we ask ourselves “Why didn’t we change after all these years” we are referring to this second level.

I feel that the root cause of why we didn’t change is that we don’t want to. We want to reach an ideal, something gratifying (the first type of change) but the idea of remaining with a problem creates a strong psychological resistance.

This could be what you call “the dominant force in most of us”. We are programmed to move away from the present, thought is essentially a movement towards the future, of achieving or accumulating something.

[rickScott]

@voyager

There is already a thread on this topic dating jul 2020

Thanks for the link, but isn’t one of the main points of these dialogues that they are grounded in the present moment, not a moment in 2020? You can never explore the same topic twice kind of thing. The alternative is accumulation with the great big cul de sac it brings. What say you?

[James]

I’ve just highlighted, Rick, the part of that thread which I feel is most relevant to this one.

K suggests remaining with ‘what is’. But we habitually resist this because we want to become - we want to become something better, etc. We can look at this here and now, 10th February 2024.

[James]

These are the relevant things K said, shared from post 143:

@James

you will find this extraordinarily arduous, because we are so conditioned that the instinctive reaction is to get away from it.

@James

My instinctual response is to run away, to explain, to act upon it. Now I realize the futility of that, and I don’t act.

@James

There is an awareness of that confusion, and to remain with it, not twist it, not try to go beyond it

@James

see if you can stay with that feeling. Can you? …

You will find it amazingly difficult. Your mind will not let the feeling alone.

@James

one realizes this truth, that you are not separate from that which you feel

[rickScott]

Seeing and staying with what-is. Sounds simple, right? But, if you read between the lines, its three main parts are hugely challenging: What is ‘what-is’? What is ‘seeing’ and how can we do it? Ditto for ‘staying with.’ Sure these have all been discussed up the wazoo. But that doesn’t matter! What matters is our relationship to them NOW. To arrive at fixed conclusions about them is to turn them into museum exhibits, entries in a Krishnamurti catechism.

[James]

So the main psychological challenge we face is to remain with these psychological states, right?

This is the central issue for all of us. It isn’t about Krishnamurti or his teachings, etc. It is about the fact that we are psychological butterflies - we jump from one psychological state to another without ever fully being aware of any of them. Isn’t this so?

And part of the reason for this is that we are habituated to this movement away from ‘what is’ (as Voyager has been saying). We are in a psychological battle with ‘what is’:

@voyager

Back to the beach, what I really felt was that I was conducting a personal war aganist reality, I had my own constructed reality which mattered more than actual reality, and I had the stubborn pretention that reality had to give in or comply to my wishes!

[voyager]

@rickScott

Thanks for the link, but isn’t one of the main points of these dialogues that they are grounded in the present moment, not a moment in 2020? You can never explore the same topic twice kind of thing. The alternative is accumulation with the great big cul de sac it brings. What say you?

Being grounded in the present does not mean that the threads here should always be new. This is not our life, this is a vitual meeting place intended for talking about the knowledge or information we have and share of K. The knowledge we can discuss or find in a thread of 2024 has the same importance or can be important as the one found in 2020, and of course you can explore the same topic twice, why not? And resuming an old discussion may be useful to find new answers or to delve more into the topic. I posted the link because I thought you might be interested to hear the response Inquiry gave to the topic in discussion. If that is not the case you can gladily ignore it.

[voyager]

@James

It is about the fact that we are psychological butterflies

I love that definition! It depicts so well our brain…

[rickScott]

@James

We are in a psychological battle with ‘what is’

And winning the battle (to the extent that’s possible) entails significant loss.

[James]

@rickScott

Seeing and staying with what-is…

its three main parts are hugely challenging:

What is ‘what-is’?

What is ‘seeing’ and

how can we do it?

Ditto for ‘staying with.’

1. What is ‘what is’?

In the context of our present discussion, the ‘what is’ is what Voyager was calling the “impact of reality”. This being - outwardly - the sound of the waves crashing on the shore, the sound of a distant voice, the seeing of a face, a cloud, a flower, a face in the crowd (all examples we have discussed on this thread).

And inwardly, psychological feeling states - such as the feeling of insecurity, being confused, having a wound, the feeling of being hurt, the feeling of envy, the feeling of hate, irritation, of sorrow, of desire.

2. What is ‘seeing’ (or ‘staying with’)?

As we have been discussing for a day or two, it may be that the seeing we have outwardly, of trees and clouds and flowers, can be carried inwardly. A choiceless, non-judgemental seeing. K says, in one of the quotes from post 143, that the looking at fear has the same quality as looking at the moon:

@James

To stay with fear means not to escape, not to seek its cause, not to rationalise or transcend it. To stay with something means that.

Like staying with looking at the moon—just look at it.

So the same quality of fresh seeing both outwardly as well as inwardly.

3. How can we do it?

This is where we have to have a quality of emotional intelligence that we seem to lack (for reasons we are now exploring on the thread).

But part of what this ‘staying with’ or ‘remaining with’ seems to involve is a sense of openness, vulnerability, non-resistance, sensitivity; a feeling or intuition or insight that the feeling being looked at is not actually separable from who we are (psychologically speaking), meaning that it is a part of us - something that is suggested by the metaphor of holding the feeling as though we were holding a baby, or something precious like a jewel. It involves an element of intimacy, which is difficult to communicate rationally.

These are some of the responses which come to my mind.

Can we look at these things with a fresh - and not a jaded or reactive or merely skeptical - mind?