This universe constantly evolves, from being still silent to absolute violent, if the change are dangerous for us we assume it to be chaos else peace. We interpret in our own way. But, for the universe its normal.
When it comes to us humans, as we are part of the universe, we also exhibit different emotions and react differently to situations. We are not the same at all times. But, I think we all have the power to choose how we react to situations.
Sea is always calm. When we see a violent sea it is the storm, a volcano, a tsunami…that is violent, the sea always remains calm … It just allows the chaotic energy to pass through it and retains its calmness when the energy has past…
We seem to forget that it is the human being himself (i.e. you and me, we) that has caused this mess (through our relationship throughout the whole human existence.
It is not an outward agency (let it be the cosmos or whatever other) that has caused it and so being not the cause it will never be the solution.
So, there is our responsibility which is immense and as K stated: bringing about a total different kind of manhood.
Are we up to it?
If I may say this, I think that before going any further perhaps you should clarify why you equate the psychological disorder of the human being that K was talking about, with the supposed ‘ordered’ chaos of the universe.
I mean, K pointed to the psychological disorder in human beings as the conscious or unconscious cause of their suffering and that of others, and their desire to escape from it without looking deeply into it (which in turn creates more disorder); whereas the ‘ordered’ chaos of the universe does not depend at all on any psychological disorder, (unless of course one believes in an unbalanced creator who controls that chaos ).
It’s like I said earlier: I think humans’ ability to adapt, fix/invent, and survive will let us persist as a species for a long long time, even if the human mind never gets anywhere near fully ordered. There might be periods of thinning out, maybe even of going nearly extinct, but our resilience and adaptability will get us through and our numbers will grow again.
Eventually we’ll probably die out as a species. Everything dies, right? We might ‘continue’ as a new species, or simply disappear with no trace. But barring a global extinction event, these are not likely to happen anytime soon. I’d say if homo sapiens manages to survive the next decade or two, until there is at least one viable off-Earth colony, we’ll survive for a million+ years.
First time I’ve been accused of that! But I’ll take it. Better than being a misanthrope (which is what some people might call me).
Someone who felt that Krishnamurti was a fanatic or kook or charlatan or delusional most likely wouldn’t bother with his teachings. I don’t think he was any of those. I think he was mostly right on with his takes on the nature of humans and reality. Most of my frustration with him is either personal (my relationship to the authority I made him into) or methodological (his non-path ‘approach,’ his tendency to exaggerate, a few other things). Content-wise, I think he pretty much nailed it. He’s one of my biggies.
May I ask you with all due respect what importance do you think it has for a terminally ill cancer patient unable to get rid of a self he has nourished all his life and desperately sees now that it is of no use to him/her, or for someone involved in an internal or external war, or for someone who right now is wondering what (s)he will do to feed his family, or for someone who for whatever reason sees no future for his/her life, your wonderful speech about the great future of permanence that awaits mankind with the added suffering that this will entail?
My message was a response to a request from Inquiry, I didn’t think about what others might make of it. Are you suggesting the things we share here should address people who are suffering to alleviate that suffering? I respect that approach, but it’s not usually mine.
When reading all these commentaries (they are what they are, no more, no less) i cannot but bare in mind that we, human kind, that we as a human being have this tremendous opportunity to change.
Should seeing the fact that our world is in danger bring this change about?
Obviously, most of us know that sthg has to be done. But the old paths are being followed and nothing really can change because of this. So, do we really see it as a fact? So as to feel it in our bones?
I wonder if this could be also a kind of imagination? How do I find out?
Because, no doubt about it, there is this urgency …
K. You think that by watching, by being aware, you will be more loving, you will suffer less, be less irritable, get something beyond; so your watching is a process of buying . With this coin you are buying that, which means that your watching is a process of choice; therefore it isn’t watching, it isn’t attention. To watch is to observe without choice, to see yourself as you are without any movement of desire to change, which is an extremely arduous thing to do; but that doesn’t mean that you are going to remain in your present state. You do not know what will happen if you see yourself as you are without wishing to bring about a change in that which you see.
There is the idea of objective absolutes, which we contrast with the idea of subjective opinions. And if I think about this enough, I can get pretty confused.
Can we consider a pile of rocks that has accumulated at the foot of a hill after a landslide.
Now if we contrast that with a human that is mentally and physically traumatised and confused because they desperately want to avoid suffering.
What have I gained from this comparison?