Fame, wealth and security have very little meaning outside of relationship. What’s the value of fame or wealth if you are living alone on a desert island? And the desire for financial security grows out of the horrible mess we have made out of living together. All this is obvious. I don’t understand why I am having to point these things out.
1 Like
Wiping away “all those things that love is not”, is an idea you’ve chased and now you’re caught by it. You can’t know what love is not by eliminating things. You’re just playing with words.
I didn’t say that. I said it has to be immediate, not take time over it. Does this question of love matter to you? If not, we don’t have to carry on discussing it.
Again, you pretend to know what you don’t know. You know nothing about the ending of the self because it’s an ongoing condition. You’ve just appropriated K’s words to give authority to yours. All you know is that you are self-centered, and the only reason you know this is because the evidence is incontrovertible - not because you observe the mechanism of egocentricity and understand how you perpetuate the illusion of your self.
If there’s no doubt in your mind that being self-centered is the root cause of human misery and all the harm we do, you don’t play around with words. You acknowledge how little you know about the human condition and turn your attention to it, if for no other reason than to be honestly what you are…for a change.
1 Like
And relationship for the self-centered mind can be as basic as me, myself, and I. Most people would rather talk to themselves than anyone else.
Really? Do you think we’re all as full of wisdom here as yourself? Not sure what planet you’ve been living on. I do see your point about wealth and financial security. We look for wealth because humans compete and hoard for themselves and leave others without adequate means for survival.
I am the experience of being hurt, which is memory, which is knowledge. I come into the room and in the encounter with you, which is relationship however brief, I am hurt again. Now what is actually going on here? What is the observation of this, which is observation without the observer? I know what the experience of getting hurt is, but what is the observation of it? And when I am trying to avoid hurt or escape from it, when I want hurt not to be, which is, skip to the part where it is not, can that observation happen?
Yes, to be isolated in this context is to be disconnected. I can be socially isolated or placed in isolation, like solitary confinement, but that is not what is really meant here. Isolation is similar to a circuit, where I cannot be a little isolated. There is isolation or there is a deep sense of connection, which Krishnamurti conveyed so well in his short vignettes at times when describing his experiencing of nature. Either there is this connectedness to all things, or there is the being of isolation, and given that self is this being of isolation, and cannot be otherwise, the question about isolation is also the question about self. And I may not be aware of the full extent of this isolation or understand the relationship between it and what is happening in the body politic. If I am an environmentalist I am somewhat aware of the relationship between human behaviour and what is happening to the rest of nature, and the part the so-called individual is playing, but even there as a self, still there is this isolation. So this isolation, which cannot be cured by having more friends, or getting married is simply existing. So I need to look at this isolation, and look at my wanting to cure it, and at my wanting it to end, which is part of it, as my self.
‘To live is to relate’… ‘Life is meant to be lived’. Krishnamurti repeated such things hundreds of times, probably, so if we accept this and if we know that each one of us is a self from the moment we start a relationship with the world around us just because we are somehow aware of it and our existence is acknowledged there is no end to this self, not as far as there is memory of our existence because we are social beings. We can elaborate about it as you please, but our existence is there. Krishnamurti questions relarionship if we build an image of whatever or whoever is around us, and that is the problem… because if we’re not relating we’re not living, following what Krishnamurti says.
It is going theoretical. Love is not theoretical. That’s why I stick to my question because once we see clearly the meaning of love we have already answered the question of brain and mind in the most practical way possible. Love has nothing to do with thought, memory, experience and knowledge; it is not in that field. So to come upon the actuality of love together – not our absurd ideas about it – we are doing something that has a tremendous effect on all our relationships.
When I (you, they) am unhappy or suffering, aren’t I “aware” of it? If I’m NOT aware of it, am I unhappy? And being aware of it, don’t I look for a cause and a remedy? I think, “It’s because of him or her or them. It’s because I’m a loser. It’s because I’m a victim”, and so on. Or I might instead ask, “why” and set about finding the answer. But now, having looked into the constitution of this “I” which is aware of its unhappiness, one (thought) sees - logically, rationally - that without memory/time, there can be no “I”, no psyche, no psychological fear, no ambition, no measure or comparison, no shame, no conceit or pretense, no deception, no greed or desire, no unhappiness, and so on. That is, one sees that the “I” is entirely constituted by thought/memory/knowledge, and that no amount of desire and psychological effort can result in finding true answers and peace. In (thought) seeing all this clearly, unequivocally, solidly, doesn’t a question then spontaneously arise, which is: Beyond the “I” which is constituted by memory, what - if anything - IS the human being? Clearly, without memory, there is still a biological human being which is not merely a biological automaton which feels hunger, thirst, fatigue, pain, pleasure, etc., and also love, compassion and beauty.
One also sees- one understands - that love, compassion, beauty and intelligence are not constituted by memory. No? One might have been told or analyzed what beauty, love, intelligence, etc. “ARE”. But the actual feeling of beauty - on seeing a sunset, majestic mountains, all of nature and the cosmos - is not rooted in memory. It is clear that one cannot “force” or produce the living feelings of compassion, love and beauty into being out of memory, One cannot “force” intelligence to act when the mind is lost in the darkness of ignorance. Actual awareness and intelligence are not the result of cunning, desire or self-interest. Beauty, love, compassion, hunger and insight do not arise out of memory-bound consciousness. This is clear to thought - clear to “me” and “you”, no? It is as clear as the inevitability of physical death, isn’t it? And so, as I see it, thought itself is - withinin the scope of its limited abilities - aware of and understands its limitations. It realizes that IT/SELF is incapable of producing insight, love, beauty, no matter how hard it tries. And is this understanding itself limited by memory? Or has there been an interval of silence which has engendered actual insight beyond words in the moment? Is such an interval “the awakening of intelligence”, as K has called it? So that it is necessary for thought to use its ability to reason as far as it can go - all the while being vigilant for the corrupting influences of its conditioning, of its own desires and habits. And having gone as far as it can, a silence naturally occurs?
So the awareness of my own unhappiness IS shaped and limited by consciousness, by memory, the past, knowledge, habit, expectations, desire, will, greed, selfishness, and so on. And this limited awareness which is contained within my consciousness — which consciousness is itself and contains, as K often pointed out, the history of the whole of humanity — has come to a brick wall, hasn’t it? THIS awareness of the state or condition I’m in has an intention to solve unhappiness; it has a desire to end it; it has made efforts to seek happiness, driven by self-interest; it is a movement contained within consciousness, part of the content of consciousness. It is rooted in thought, idea, belief, knowledge etc., isn’t it? Which is the history of humanity.
Being contained within consciousness, I agree with you, Richard, that it is again part of thought and knowledge. That is, it is driven by self-interest, and it is obviously not “silent”, not free of the word, of naming. It names, describes and analyzes the suffering, it rebels against it, and so on. That is the nature of thought’s awareness. Whatever thought DOES can only BE thought. As you say, it cannot be different from thought itself. But as I see it, that is only thought’s awareness - the limited, superficial awareness of consciousness looking outward from its illusory centre.
There is another awareness - the silent awareness in which thought plays no part - isn’t there? Silent awareness is the awareness that “comes with” life, isn’t it? Not every living thing has thought but every living thing has awareness according to its nature, doesn’t it?
This living awareness is what connects every living thing to the ground of the whole, whatever that ground is. Living awareness is living in relationship with the creative intelligence from which the universe springs — unless you believe in something else. You can challenge this and I cannot defend it. It might be so or it might not be so, but it cannot be argued and resolved dialectically. Either it is so or it is not so. Either it is seen or it is not - the sun is in the sky or it is not; war is raging or not; one is hungry or one is not; one loves or one does not. One can argue such things, but only as abstractions - which is meaningless. No one can “make” another see a fact that is not seen.
As I see it, every human being has the same hungers as every other human being - for food, for water, for peace, for truth and meaning. I don’t have to be convinced or shown that I am hungry. It is seen or experienced first-hand. If I don’t experience hunger for food, water, peace, meaning, am I actually hungry? And no idea or belief can satisfy hunger.
In the same way that my hunger is not unique, consciousness is not unique. Hunger is hunger. Consciousness (as it presently is) is consciousness. Mankind’s consciousness is presently separative, disconnected, based on memory, knowledge, belief, time, and so on. It is based on the IDEA that it is separate, apart, unique, and on the idea that it is or can be or “should be” in charge of its actions and life trajectory, that it can change from this to that - from shy to assertive, from ignorant to educated, from loser to winner, from brute to lover, from lover to brute, and so on. And this idea has been transmitted from generation to generation since at least the beginning of history. THAT is how my consciousness is the consciousness of mankind.
Just as my physical hunger does not make me special, superior or inferior, so my psychological hunger does not set me apart from the rest of mankind. It is part of the consciousness of mankind that is transmitted from one generation to the next. And, as I see it, that consciousness CAN be aware of its limitations, its nature, its conceits, pretense, deceits and hunger. And doesn’t the awareness of one’s own conceit, pretense, deceit, fear, and so on, transcend the content of consciousness? Is that the awakening of intelligence, which is not personal, not “yours” or “mine”? The contents of consciousness - one’s fear, greed, brutality, desires, and so on - is an immovable object in that no amount of effort can fundamentally alter or end it. And the awareness of these limitations is an unstoppable force. There is nothing to do to stop or end the perception of the nature, activities and significance of consciousness. The thinker can do nothing. Beauty, love, the content of consciousness, fear, suffering - the thinker can do nothing in any direction.
I don’t know if this makes sense or is relevant or out of place.
5 Likes
Before the observation without the observer, who is the observer? He is memory, knowledge, hurt, experience - all that. He is the content of his consciousness. That’s right, isn’t it? Therefore the observer is incapable of accurate perception, observation. At any level.
I question that the self is an ongoing condition. You don’t seem to question it; so you are starting from a conclusion about the self that then directs the course of your enquiry. When I see very clearly that any action from the self-centre is going to create more havoc in the world, I come to a stop. I only see this when I face the fact that every particle of my psychological being is self-centred, every particle. There isn’t some secret inner chamber of purity. So I come to a stop. I don’t stop breathing, living, talking, eating, meeting people, enjoying the beauty of the world. I come to a stop as a psychological entity. That’s all. Otherwise all of these many dialogues are just worthless intellectual exercises. They don’t mean a thing if the self just carries on spreading its old mischief.
1 Like
Isn’t it in these kind of condemnatory judgements, that the ‘self’ finds ‘security’ to go on?
Can the self come to an end? That is our question. At any point in the dialogue, which has been going on now for two weeks, has the self come to an end? That’s all. If it has, the dialogue has some point. If not, what on earth have we all been talking about?
Well since you are bringing this up and have implied that for you the ‘self’ has ended and that this has something to do with “love”, why not go into this in some detail? I understand that the word is not the thing and the description is not the described etc. You seem to be trying to communicate something are you not? What is it? Over the course of these dialogues along with one’s own inquiries, many things happen, insights, etc. You are dismissing all that as useless if this ‘ending of the self’ has not taken place? Maybe there is more to ‘ending the self’ (after thousands of years of it being present) than saying if it hasn’t ended after we have spoken about it for a few days then why continue?
Thanks for bringing this point out Huguette. It was never clear to me. And we are asking here if that ‘transmission’ can end with me here in this life. That I can awaken to its presence, its totality, its deceptiveness and destructiveness? (Or that ‘it’ can awaken to itself?)
There is no detail necessary. Do you love me? We are two strangers and yet I am putting that question to you. Does the self have any part to play in this, both the putting of the question and the listening to it?
Yes I think it does. You are a stranger asking me if I love you…It is somewhat bizarre. (no offense) To me you are sounding like a ‘love guru’ (no offense). Do you do this with strangers when you are walking down the street?
Dan,
It seems to me that “we” (whoever is interested in this) can no longer ask such questions. Are actually incapable of it. Not to say that we “should not” ask such questions. Such questions might arise and one cannot prevent that from happening. But where there is attention, isn’t it seen that questions of this nature themselves perpetuate the very qualities and activities - of seeking, desire, hope, effort, measure, fear, ambition, and so on - which alert us to the movements of our age-old consciousness, of self? And so questions which arise are observed, but no conscious effort can be made to produce an answer to them. In the very observation of consciousness, action is taken, words might be (or not be) spoken, mistakes might be made and there might be understanding. In following such questions as you mention to their root, isn’t it seen that analyzing and measuring them in itself perpetuates or agitates the conditioned consciousness, the self?
The fact (of self’s nature and thought’s limitations) is seen and the fact is immovable. And the very perception of it is also immovable. What is action then? Can it be the “same old same old” - meaning that I continue to be driven to look for an answer to what I should do. But the immovable perception does not allow it.
The action “to be taken” is actually unknown, isn’t it? It cannot be known “ahead of time”. I don’t know what to do and I don’t know what I will do. The future is unknown. I can no longer say, “I will do this or that” with respect to problems of relationship. Can we live in doubt and uncertainty? Do we have any choice about it? We must, mustn’t we? Seeing what is seen, how can we not? Certainty in these matters is merely a posture, arrogance; and doubt (not knowing) is humility which is not a posture; as I hesitantly see it.
5 Likes