‘I hope you have clarity. Clarity means there is no centre from which you are functioning, no centre put together by thought as the ‘me’, ‘mine’, ‘they’ and ‘we’. Where there is a centre, there must be circumference, and where there is a circumference there is resistance, there is division and that is one of the fundamental ‘causes’ of fear. So, when we consider fear, we’re considering the whole movement of thought, which breeds fear. And clarity is possible only when thought is completely in abeyance, that is, when thought has its right place, which is to act in the field of knowledge and not enter into any other field. (…) Without clarity skill becomes a most destructive thing in life, which is what is happening in the world. (…) When there is that clarity, skill never becomes mechanical, because whatever the skill may be, it is functioning, acting from that clarity that is born out of compassion.’ (From the PT in Saanen, 14th July, 1977).
So, no centre, thought having its right place and compassion, that is, no place for fear to be.
Yes, where there is a centre, there is a circumference, snd that circumference is as the centre.
What is the idea of space self is identified with? From here to the farthest reach of space; is that the immeasurable or the limited. Is far or near anything but an idea the brain holds?
Krishnamurti has pointed out that mind, which is the immeasurable, which is space, is outside of the brain, and that the conditioned brain has no contact with, no relationship to that. He has pointed out that the space the brain knows is generated by thought as idea. So the space the brain experiences is itself.
Dominic,
It’s interesting what you’re saying but I’m afraid you’re simply pursuing a line of thought. Leaving from the centre we can no longer be sure about what space we’re talking about, that’s what seems to me. I understand that the centre will probably tinge the space of the circumference, but I think what Krishnamurti means here is that this perception of space by the centre can only be limited if the tool we use is knowledge. As to the brain, Krishnamurti wasn’t sure about its potentialities, really about the true nature of the brain. Sometimes he used brain and changed it for mind, sometimes he noted that scientists say we humans only use a small part of the brain. It won’t be thought that is going to establish the connection with the immeasurable, this is definite. Krishnamurti speaks of ‘clarity’, I understand it will be awareness, but this awareness will have to be very profound, it needs alertness on our part, that’why meditation is not any sort of passive condition.
From what you are saying, it seems that the circus begins when one turns away from the emptiness of the present and tries to fill the void with images of a better landscape. Would this be a fair way to describe what is happening?
Well this is for the brain to verify for itself is it not, given it is prepared to face that. Krishnamurti pointed out that the brain could not be in contact with space which is immeasurable, unless it was silent, and that the brain cannot be silent unless it has deeply understood its conditioning. So the clear implication of this is that the space the brain experiences ordinarily is not just tinged by its conditioning, but is its conditioning, which goes a way to explaining why the psyche knows no freedom and is violent. What does it say about the reality of the space psyche considers itself to be in, that it should be so dysfunctional?
Dominic,
It’s your words that the psyche is violent, I don’t know. But I remember Krishnamurti saying that ‘what is’ is the most sacred. You recall that only the silent mind (rather than brain) must be silent in order to get in touch with the immeasurable and it can only happen when the brain has fully understood its conditioning. If it happens like that, then it goes with the part of the transformation of the brain cells, it seems fair. For myself I understand there must be compassion so that it all can happen. It is transformation we’re talking about, that’s for sure and it can’t happen if there isn’t this quality of compassion in one’s heart.
Yes, in this case it seems it was the “turn away” the desire to escape the emptiness of the present moment and go to the past. And yes, that’s brilliant, then fill the void with anything but facing the emptiness. About images of a better landscape, I am not unsure about this one. Perhaps you are simply talking about other hidden desires to accumulate and fill the void.
Here are some questions that may pertain to image making. What are the causes of image making? What are the implications of the images?
So it may be best to explore these questions in a new thread. Shall I begin one?
It’s fear of the known when we imagine frightful scenarios, but it’s the unknown - what we don’t know or understand - that makes us insecure.
I would question that Inquiry. What we don’t know is infinite. What we know is finite and it’s that that causes insecurity. I fear I may lose my job and that creates tremendous insecurity if I can’t easily find another. I KNOW that if I’m broke, I might not be able to pay my rent. My care will be repossessed. So insecurity comes from the known as I see it. I may be mistaken but that’s how I’m seeing it.
All mortal beings are insecure and can be conditioned to live in constant fear.
Krishnamurti said that the brain must have complete security, and the only way that is possible is to have no fear of death, which is the unknown until self-centered consciousness “dies”.
Jess:
'What is ’ is most sacred.
How? I see children playing and I just look, with no thought or reaction. That is ‘what is’ and may be sacred as I do not know what sacred means other that it’s dictionary meaning. But in place of children if there is person who is being tortured and is crying out of pain that is also ‘what is’ but can it be sacred?
It is the seeing of “what is” that is sacred.
Children seeking pleasure through games - or People seeking power through torture - these are the movement of the self - the self does not see what is.
Dependance on desire and aversion is not sacred - ignorance and suffering are just the cause of further suffering.
Are you saying act of perception is sacred and not that which is perceived.
TNP,
I think that this is one of the most mysterious things that Krishnamurti has stated, indeed. The way I understand it, Krishnamurti means that ‘sacred’ is that which can’t be touched by man or that can’t be a man’s artifact. In the example you give, I think maybe 'what is’is not the actions both of the child or the man but something extremely subtle that won’t probably have a name and which has to do with the energy behind. Both actions will have a consequence which we can’t be sure about but which are part of the laws of nature. As human beings we have inbuilt energies which will identify what is human energy and what isn’t, it’s not easy to discern all this, and we must be ready to learn with the challenges we have to face every day.
As you say may be it is not easy to understand what K meant by 'what is ’ is sacred until one understands or comes upon sacredness. It is simillar to his statement ‘Universe is in meditation’
I’d prefer to say that either everything is sacred or nothing is - in either case we would have to junk the word altogether.
However, having entered into the conversation, what I’ll actually say is that there is perception (which is limited by the senses), immediately followed by interpretation (which is a translation of the data based on conditioning) and thus reaction based on desire and aversion (which is the self) - all of this is part of “what is” thus delusion and selfish action is part of reality - the only thing not “sacred” is the domination of what we believe to be true, the dependance on the self, and thus the separation between me and you.
Is not the energy behind the actions : desire and aversion? The self.
Are you saying that these examples of human behavior are not what-is?
Macdougdoug,
I think you’re referring to the observer who is observing the child and someone being tortured, not what is being observed. In this case I would suggest that desire and aversion result of man’s wrong turn, if so, there’s nothing sacred about it being it the result of man’s behaviour. Generally, this reminds me of W Blake’s poem Tiger: ‘… did he who made the Lamb make thee?..’ This remains as a question.