Does this mean that if I’m driven, possessed, by desire for power, influence, position, wealth, etc., and committed to doing whatever it takes to achieve it, that I’m serious? Or can one only be serious about the human condition and freedom?
I ask because if one can be serious about superficial things like wealth and power, the worst people on the planet are serious.
Are we looking for a motivation? What is moving us to be here on the forum and talk about this question about seriousness? To me the fact that we are doing it seems to be enough.
Why should there be a why? A why demands an answer and I don’t have one. Do not misunderstand me: i have answers but i do not know what is the right answer.
Should i then stay away from the forum? I guess it would be an empty place if every one who didn’t have an answer should stay away, no?
Right. As human beings our interests vary alot, don’t they? As Inquiry says,
One can also be deadly serious about an illusion. Think of all the pseudo-religious people there are in the world - Christian, Hindu and Islamic fundamentalists, avowed Marxists and Communists, ideological libertarians of various kinds, etc - all deeply serious about what they feel to be the truth as they see it. Think of how deadly serious people can be about their little insights and so-called spiritual experiences, how serious one can be in a conviction that turns out to be false.
So probably most of what we humans are serious about is some form of illusion. So one also needs to be able to put a pin in one’s own seriousness, to find out if it really is a seriousness worth our seriousness!
Interests may differ. They do. To be honest i have had different interests from childhood on. Like anyone else, i suppose They came and went.
But I think we are talking about that interest that seems to remain with us i.e. the interest in the teachings, in finding out what K was talking about, what you are talking about, what I am talking about.
And we picked the topic : what about seriousness and how to find out whether we are serious at all.
And indeed there is a certain energy involved : how much am i prepared to put in it? Is it a casual thing? An intellectual “in between”? Or , still, sthg else? Or is it a “burning”, “life-depending” question?
I think we will hzve to answer these questions for ourselves in order to live a different life. Wouldn’t you ahree to this?
In everyday language, the word serious is used to imply steadfastness, applying oneself earnestly in the pursuit of something of the other, that sort of thing.
It makes sense though that we here would use the word ‘serious’ in the manner you described. But even within this narrowed usage of the word, there is variation and nuance.
I, for example, think of my “seriousness” more along the lines of an interest in truth for its own sake, uncovering reality as it is, whatever it is, allowing it to come into being, not cajoling it into existence in accordance with my wishes, not me fulfilling my own prophesies based on my beliefs, convictions, or second hand knowledge.
Spiritual/religious/philosophical interest expresses itself differently from person to person - some of us are seeking to resolve conflict or better inter-personal relationships, etc but the common starting point is surely an understanding of the nature of thought and the thinker for that forms the basis of t human experience. Deep inquiry into that process is something we should all be able to coalesce around no matter our personal leaning. The only prerequisite is that we treasure honesty and simplicity above all else.
Thank you for this question. I’ve heard this and similar questions from others. But one thing that stands out to me upon reading the question is this: Part of the problem with “trying to get” Krishnamurti, which has been the focus of many a dialogue I’ve been engaged in, is that trying to get Krishnamurti is not the point. Trying to get oneself is the point. It seems to me that the last thing k wanted us to do was to go around and around about k and what he meant. He beseeched us all…not to understand him…but to understand ourselves…as the key to solving many of our self-created problems.
To your point, though: It’s quite possible that focusing on trying to understand K could be just another diversion…that some of us (myself included) have engaged in as a way to avoid what’s truly important…understanding myself.
I truly do not know where or when to start this journey of understanding myself. I seem to be biased and obstructed by everything i know.
The only sensible thing (at least i think it is sensible) is to start over and over again. And then i ask myself: is this possible at all? To leave behind all that i have gathered in the years i have been living. And i am talking about the psychological rubbish. Because as far as i can see it is a burden i carry with me. The burden of the past.
And then you meet with other people here in this group who seem to have the same problem (you know the starting over afresh) and also are struggling with it.
K seems to know the answer. At least i think he knew. Why don’t I?
I think there are two ways one could look at this problem. One is abstract, takes time and is rather daunting. The other is tangible, takes no time at all and is (relatively) easy to do.
The first involves a knowledge-based authority that is directing the show. We have identified with the idea that it is desirable to acquire self-knowledge. The key word here is “acquire”, for that is where the difficulty comes in. To acquire something takes time and effort. The fact is I don’t have self-knowledge now so can only get it in the future. Any authority that contradicts the present must introduce time in order to be satisfied. You need time not only to gather information, knowledge, experience, but also to act according to that experience, knowledge, information. This work is all done in the abstract, it involves ideas coming and going, abstracting reality in one’s head. It is not easy navigating a world of such complex, often rather vague ideas, so no wonder we are flummoxed by it. Yet the human brain seems to have evolved to tackle these type of problems so it is the default approach.
But what if the thing we want to look at and learn about is already here, exists in the present, perhaps even is the present? Then it would not be a matter of acquisition, there would be no time gap between the idea and what needs to be done, therefore no authority of any sort involved. Furthermore, there is no abstraction or effort required to examine what is right in front of you, existent, entirely tangible. And what is the me, myself if not the present? My experience is entirely personal. The entire content of my consciousness, how I experience the present, my reality … is that not the me? To examine the self then is to examine the present in the present, the living, objective reality that is hiding in plain sight. It is only the introduction of time (past and future) into the present through the authority of ideas, our own or from an external source, that obscures access to the self. So it seems to me anyway.
Thank you for your elaboration, it was really helpfull.
According to what you said, there are two ways to deal with the problem of our existence.
First one can accept , willingly or not, an authority i.e. the past to deal with it and the other way (being totally different) is to live in the now.
I 've put it very simply so it stays clear in my mind. Would you agree with this?
The first one way of living is the way of thinking, isn’t it? And I can see for myself and for the world that it leads to destruction. This is my conviction, or you may call it a fact.
Seeing this you cann’t do anything but moving away from it. There is no explanation from whomever that can change your mind.
That leaves you on your own, maybe for the first time and you ask yourself and others who are moving in that direction: what am I to do? What are we to do?
(As I gather that English is not your native tongue, I am taking the liberty to lightly edit some of your spelling and grammar. Hope this is helpful and hasn’t altered your intended meanings.)
I am not sure we can be rid of the authority of our ideas so easily. Any thing we take to be a fact one moment becomes fodder for the fragmentation process - I/not I, past/future - the next. So it is not just a question of intellectual understanding, though that obviously plays an important role or there would be no value in us talking about this or K having spoken. Understanding that carries forward from moment to moment is no different than any other form of psychological baggage.
You ask what are we to do? I have no idea as anything we do is predicated on, and preceded by, an idea that that is the right thing to do. This much is clear to me: any movement I make creates self. I can’t speak for others. It may be a question of doing nothing, but the fact that the thinking process continues unabated suggests we are stuck on a treadmill.
Yes that is why I feel Krishnamurti said …offered…that “freedom is born with the perception that freedom is essential”.
Yes, but this treadmill existence is what sustains my illusions, my psychological content, so I have no choice but to be this treadmill until/unless I find what I’m actually doing more interesting than what I think I’m doing.
The irony may well be that there is freedom once one realizes that freedom is not possible. When all the authorities that have held promise are realized for what they are - half-baked solutions.
It is incredibly difficult to stand alone, vulnerable without solution, without moving away from reality as it is. An impossible question has no solution.
But, aren’t we all alone? Not in the sense of feeling lonely , but in the sense of all-one. Is this a fact or did I just made that up?
When I believe I know what freedom is, I am a liar, because to believe is to lie to oneself. For I, truth is whatever I say it is or isn’t.
But when I’m forced to face the fact that I’m confused, conflicted, suffering, I realize that this can’t be freedom, and I have to admit that freedom is having no choice but to face facts, how ever much I want to deny, dismiss, or distort them as I have always felt free to do.
When I face a fact, I’m facing my conditioned response to deface, deflect, or distort the fact to accord with my beliefs about what-should/should-not-be. Knowing that freedom is not about the freedom to be I, but perceiving what is actual, like it or not.
That does strike me as fanciful thinking. Maybe I misunderstand your meaning. Speaking speculatively though, wouldn’t the perception of the whole mean there was no longer an “I”, a fragment doing the perceiving? And if there is no I, there would be no issue. But the fact is that there is an I and there are issues. It may well be that there is only “all-one” in the grand scheme of things but from the vantage point of the self that can only be a belief.
However I wasn’t using the word alone in such a lofty sense. I meant it more in the everyday sense of not relying on one’s solutions, no matter their provenance, having come to point where one is honest enough to see the full nature of the problem, that all our solutions are incomplete, wanting, corrupted by our need for security. And therefore the very spinning up of solutions is the problem and yet we are unable to stop spinning them up. It takes tremendous courage to be helpless to that degree. It goes against instinct. A “crisis in the mind” to quote Krishnamurti.
Yes, I was a bit playing with words, though on a language level we have this difference between lonely and alone. But as I mentioned a confused mind can easily make things up.
But there is this fact (speaking about facts) that the world is in a crisis, now maybe more then ever before).
There is no doubt that everyone has -at least- to acknowledge this.
The moment we try to explain we are moving away , aren’t we.
It becomes more harder to accept that we (as a human being) have created this crisis. And even more difficult to acknowledge that this outward crisis is a reflexion of our inward being.
That is, briefly, what K is saying.
To see this (he added) is also the first step, no?
I’m reminded of Krishnamurti’s powerful statement: “there is no division”…if true and for me it is the only thing that makes sense, all attempts to ‘free ourselves’ simply, only, perpetuate that ‘darkness’; the darkness of those ‘walls’ that we have built around ‘ourselves’ to be ‘safe’. All attempts are for an impossible solution to a nonexistent ‘problem’.
At the risk of sounding tiresome, can any one of us honestly say they know how to take the first step or how to face a fact? Is it not that we have found comfort in an idea? Is there not hope, inspiration, aspiration, or the like lurking somewhere in the recesses of the mind? What would it take, I wonder, to really abandon all hope yet not find refuge in another corner like acceptance or resignation or belief? That would make for real crisis, would it not? I for one do not feel such an acute sense of urgency.
A bit of a Schrödinger’s Cat type situation seems to be called for. I have to be empty to view myself truthfully. Thinking has to end to be able to see its movement in earnest. The self needs to be simultaneously dead and alive.
I fear the reports of our deaths are highly exaggerated.
Can you go a little bit more into what you mean by all-one ? It could be a fact .