That means - gather religion(bible,quran,vedas,etc),capitalism,dictatorship,democracy,communism,philosophies,etc… and compare within themselves - which suits better for making a law in a country.
Of course it needs - for setting it up - to control theft/fight/etc… and all that. But if one observes carefully, even that too brings a form of violence. Because, lawyers/businessmen/politicians,etc… finds a hole/lag in the law - and uses it for every pleasures and save them from being behind bars. And also fight between countries because of these divisions - is it your’s or mine’s big. It is the huge/big violence in the world/country we live. One can see that.
But if a man like K becomes a world dictator - then the law may help people and not become a threat/violence.
Yes it’s complicated! And what makes it Impossible at this point are the different self images competing against each other…the brain entrapped in thought / time?
It seems - it is so. “India is ‘my’ …” & “US is ‘my’…”. All are thoughts of Humanity - to throw away the person who ruled them. Though those statements - had met it’s need, it now becomes pride,etc… and goes on and on and on.
**I don’t think it’s actually complicated. Human thought, analysis, is what makes things seem complicated. Competition can occur in “play.” Playing is natural to all animals, including the human animals…“it appears.” It doesn’t have to be a ‘me versus a you.’ We enjoy playing. It’s possible to see clearly that we are one humanity and engage in play together. Which involves a form of competition. But no one is higher or lower at the end of the game.
Cavishwa,
For example, in Krishnamurti schools, as far as I know, the staff, from the principal to the secretary assistant or cook, all have the same salary and the cook may become principal and vice-versa. You don’t look down on the cook for example, if the cook does his job efficiently he/she is as worthy as the principal (If the principal works with excellence). The important thing is that at a particular time one is the best for the job assigned to him/her.
Dan,
Maybe you’re right, but for the moment I don’t see that competition may exist without conflict. Different political systems exist, but it isn’t a matter of competition that makes you decide whether one is better than the other, it is rather that there is a general sense of what is ‘good society’ and ‘bad society’ (just to bring in Krishnamurti’s intent of creating a good society).
So, you are saying for physical/technical skills - there should be comparison - only then the business/management can function protecting it’s loss. If recruiting a biology Educator-Learner, instead of Accounts Educator-Learner, then everything will be collapsed.
But - in my view - here, while recruitment and in his assignment, if we carefully observe - we doesn’t need to compare with other standards/persons. Just a pure observation is enough - to recruit and monitor - what he does. While recruiting a Educator-Learner, we ask him to take a class and we observe what he does (i.e. whether Learner-Educaters are satisfied with him, whether he covers every topic in a chapter he is interviewed). If he is fine - he is recruited. If he should have more experience - then he is not recruited and next person comes in for the same process.
In Business - this skill comparison is the very hectic/violence bringing one. If the employer is not satisfied with the employee’s work means - let the employer show him where he lacks and show him how to improvize him - but if the employee is not learning and keeps on dis-satisfying employer means, let the employer cut off that employee. But what happens actually is - every business tries to keep their employee turnover rate less. While recruiting too - they don’t observe what he does - whether he is skilled/semi/unskilled & minimum employees is assigned for a bulk project - to earn more profit. For that, the employer pressurizes him by comparing him with project/office mate - then hate arises between the compared persons, then everytime there is clash between them and if the other is in a stage to getting a promotion - this one goes and stops it. That’s all i see.
Caviswa,
We know what it’s like in a corrupt world, Krishnamurti talked about it extensively and that’s one reason why Krishnamurti appeals to many people as he showed how corruption comes about.
When we’re assessing people for a job of course it is right to observe the way they act, how they perform, etc. The thing is this observation includes parameters, that is, you’re measuring the feasibility of those people for the job, and that’s the right thing to do. Call it observation if you want and avoid using the word comparison if you want, as one has got a positive connotation as opposed to the other in Krishnamurti readings, but the fact is measuring has got an important place in people’s lives, the problem is the use one makes of it. Meditation, itself, Krishnamurti often says the word comes from measuring.
Yes. Yes. Measuring happens. As a matter of fact, it happens in our daily life. But if we keep on - as it happens, then we are accepting and bound with it and in time too.
Measurement means - measuring distance/time between two ends (i.e. between me & you, past & present,etc…).
Meditation - what we historically do - is a measurement. That we have an ideal/thought - we run from ‘me’(i.e.what is) to ‘that’(i.e.what should be). But actually, Meditation is different from that. The True Meditation is one, there is no ends or points - ‘it’ is a flow - ‘it’ is an ongoing process, and for that, the point ‘me’ must come to an end/vanished. Only then ‘it’ may take place. It’s my view/observation and not a conclusion.
Public Talk 4 in Colombo, 16 November 1980
Meditation is the ending of all measurement. Measurement exists as long as the ‘me’ exists, as long as the ‘I’ exists with its pride, images, hurts, vanity, ambition, fears, anxiety - the ‘me’ that is put together by thought. As long as that ‘me’ exists - which is the centre of measurement, the very centre of conflict - meditation leads only to further illusion and mischief.
Caviswa,
Krishnamurti approaches meditation from different angles, and of course we must start from where we are. Sometimes Krishnamurti gets into a discussion with some people and at the end he says they had done meditation. I would say that in this case there is discernment bringing people together, so that the quality of this coming together is absolutely selfless and as such beyond time. And it implies we’re learning about life, that’s what really matters.
Meditation apparently meaning freedom from the habitual blocages of knowledge, non-dependance on the framework and filter of self.
Which is meditation. (Concentration, discipline, imagination, visualisation etc being something else altogether)
Macdougdoug,
I think it’s up to each one of us to decide whether what one is doing is meditation or not. but those who read Krishnamurti have come across different references of what Krishnamurti identifies as meditation. Perhaps you’re familiar with the book ‘Meditations’ published by the Krishnamurti Foundation of India. Just two examples: ‘Meditation is not concentration, which is exclusion, a cutting off, a resistance and so a conflict. A meditative mind can concentrate, which then is not an exclusion, a resistance, but a concentrated mind cannot meditate.’ Also ‘In meditation one has to find out whether there is an end to knowledge and so freedom from the known’.
A Meditation is not Concentration. But a Meditative mind can ‘Concentrate’.
There is difference between ‘Awareness’ and ‘Concentration’. Awareness includes Concentration - but Concentration is not Awareness.
When we work in our place - Employers ask us to ‘concentrate’ - which means no diversion should happen - whatever happens in the world. Even if there is a mild earthquake/theft in office - ‘Concentrated’ person tries to control him to react - as he has an aim to complete the job and thus continue their work ‘double minded’. But a person who is actually ‘Aware’ - there is nothing to block his concentration in work - but if a situation happens as i stated above - he reacts immediately & catches the thief or saves people from injury.
So from this, Awareness is pure Meditation - which happened in K’s discussion - which also includes Concentration. But Awareness is not limited to Concentration. In this world - Many Meditation Methods talk about ‘Concentration’ - and forces us ‘to become’ by closing the eyes - as there are more diversion waiting for our senses & senses may control the person. But in actual Meditation - No need to close eyes - as one is ‘purely Aware’ about those diversion/senses - so he is free from being controlled. In that ‘Awareness/Meditaion’ - ‘Concentration’ also takes place.
I hereby expressed my view/observation. It is not a fact or conclusion. It is opened for questioning or enquiry.
Maybe ‘attention’ is a more precise word. Slipping from it will be back to awareness and not to the observer/observed dichotomy. As I see, the more important point here is about the state of the physical body and mind, are they effortlessly still? And is that stillness born out of an understanding that any movement unaware of in body/mind complex is an indication of the self/I/me in operation. And even deeper is whether there was an event of a total surrender to back this up, which again is born of an understanding that patterns are self sustaining and that there’s nothing to be done about them.
Both ‘awareness’ and ‘attention’ has little difference. Here the wiki differences,
Awareness is the state of being conscious of something. More specifically, is the ability to directly know and perceive, to feel, or to be cognizant of events.
Attention is the behavioral and cognitive process of selectively concentrating on a discrete aspect of information, whether considered subjective or objective, while ignoring other perceivable information.
If we mean ‘attention’ in this above way (it’s like giving attention to the senses/memory/thoughts) - readers may be confused. But if you mean ‘attention’ as K described - as ‘Superficial Awareness’, which I meant too - then we are discussing the same.
In ‘Meditation/attention/Superficial Awareness’ - there is no effort - and not a stillness too. It is a flow - a endless/pointless/pathless movement. No force/effort is need to direct it to a point/aim.
In my view, this pointless movement(which i think you mentioned as ‘still’) is not born out from something. The life we live in - is because of the ‘self/I/ego’. But if one observe carefully, the 'thoughts/desires/sufferings/knowledge/experience/pleasure/pain/etc. - cease/has it’s right place to exist. As an immediate response of that ‘ceisure/right place’ - the ‘self/I/ego’ vanishes - and what remains is that ‘flow/meditation/attention/superficial awareness/Love’ whatever ‘name’ one calls it. It is not born from ‘self/I/ego’ - but on ending of ‘I’. In this freedom - there is no surrender/nothing happens.
These - I hereby expressed my view/observation. It is not a fact or conclusion. It is opened for questioning or enquiry.
Note - ‘Has it’s right place’ - i meant of Technical Knowledge/Thoughts. If one sees ‘Intelligence’ as a precise word for this - let it be.
Caviswa,
I wouldn’t say that awareness is pure meditation, as you stated. Meditation includes awareness, but it isn’t awareness. From the book I mentioned before: ‘Meditation is hard work. It demands the highest form of discipline - not conformity, not imitation, not obedience - but a discipline which comes through constant awareness, not only the things about you outwardly, but also inwardly. So meditation is not an activity of isolation but is action in everyday life which demands cooperation, sensitivity and intelligence. Without laying the foundation of a righteous life, meditation becomes an escape and therefore has no value whatsoever. (…) Without knowing the activities of the self, meditation becomes sensuous excitement and therefore of very little significance’. I think Natarajan is right when he says that attention (in the sense Krishnamurti uses the word) has directly to do with meditation.
Macdougdoug,
Many things Krishnamurti says sound contradictory at times, they have to be seen in context. Here I think ‘hard work’ goes with ‘constant awareness’ as it happens quite often that we’re just unaware of the environment. And deep awareness ( as Krishnamurti often tells people in a discussion, just to go deeper) also is not easy to come by, either we’re there or we’re out of it, superficial or casual awareness doesn’t do anything for meditation.
Are you saying that the hard work is the effort we put into holding a constant level of awareness?
Another line of inquiry that might help : what is the difference between choiceless awareness and the awareness of somebody that is not interested in K or meditation?