Macdougdoug,
If there is effort it isn’t right, that is for sure. Krishnamurti speaks of constant awareness, but it must happen out of the love of truth. ‘Choiceless awareness’ was the way Krishnamurti found to make people understand what he was talking about, meditation may be understood in different ways as you know, there are different schools and many religious people might not identify their daily practice with any sort of meditation. Krishnamurti met thousands of people, he was important for some, others completely forgot the person and the message. I think that those who have been touched by him have the responsibility to make a difference.
**Hello Jess - While this statement seems true, my question is: What does making this difference look like? If someone asks you this question, what do you suggest to them? Is it talking about the ideas that have been accumulated from reading or hearing Krishnamurti speak, like: “There is no effort,” “It must happen out of the love of truth,” or “a discipline that comes through constant awareness?” Or, by inquiring with anyone who’s interested, and listening to each other?
If it’s basically the latter, that raises the question, “What sort of inquiry is this?” Is it an intellectual inquiry, more talking about the ideas we’ve accumulated? Or, something quite different?
Krishnamurti: I said `enquiry’. I am not using that word merely in the dictionary meaning but also to mean a mind that is enquiring, looking . To enquire, you must have freedom, the mind must not be tethered to any form of beliefs, conclusions. - Bombay Feb. 1961
Q: But how can the centre end? What am I to do to end it? What disciplines, what sacrifices, what great efforts have I to make?
K: None. Only see without a choice the activities of the centre; not as an observer, not as an outsider looking within, but just observe without a censor. - Can the Mind Be Quiet?
**K seems to be suggesting that the essence of what he means by enquiry is 'seeing or observation." Is this responsibility you speak of, a responsibility to “observe together, without any stored ideas or conclusions?”
K: What is important is to begin with what is actual. We are having a conversation now, a dialogue. In which both of us are friends. We talk freely, I hope. Enquire, investigate. Therefore there is no system in that. Both of us are seriously concerned about something, and we’re going to have a dialogue about it.
In inquiry, we discover a great many things. If we’re both attentive, watchful, and we’ll discover the most fantastic and real things. And the perception of that brings us together, there is no you and me in perception. - Interview by Eric Robson
**If what we’re trying to share is a looking from not knowing, is it not important to also show that by example?
It’s psychological thought if you say it was rigged, and it’s practical thought if you say it was legitimate.
Howard,
Thank you for bringing us this interview by Eric Robson, I think it’s interesting.
This matter of observing without observer is not easy both to do and to talk about! Human beings and relationships change all the time so observation has to change as well and this is difficult to accept. I think when Krishnamurti speaks of the need to be very sensitive he means also in this sense of being aware about the change that awareness bears in itself. When you refer to this ‘looking from not knowing’ I don’t understand what you mean by saying it’s important to show that by example! This idea of example doesn’t sound right to me, would you mind explaining it further a bit maybe?
Are you saying that a belief that is shown to be correct is practical, and a belief that is shown to be incorrect is psychological?
**They both look like psychological judgments. Beliefs. A practical thought might be: “They’ve found no evidence of widespread fraud.” To evaluate it as legitimate or not is a value judgment…it seems.
Let’s be clear about what we mean by “belief”. In a K-conversation it’s a loaded word, not used in the ordinary way. If I say I believe the election was not rigged - it’s not a value judgment. It’s a fact until or if there is evidence to the contrary. The judges who ruled that the election was not rigged, believed that to be the case.
My mistake for using a radioactive word in a K-forum.
If I may share some foolishness: Beliefs are in a state of superposition, like Schrodinger’s cat.
Explanation please…
Some beliefs have legs. Others fall flat.
**You don’t think “rigged” is a value judgment??? An opinion is not a fact. This is one of the big incoherences in thought. A fact can be observed, but our opinion about the fact, is not the fact, it’s an opinion. It may be a ‘valid’ opinion, but it’s still just “thought,” not the actual fact.
It’s a fact that many elections in other supposedly democratic countries hold rigged elections. It’s not a judgment. It’s a verifiable fact.
In this country the Bush-Gore election was effectively stolen when the supreme court stopped the recount. Trump won the electoral college but not the popular vote, and that is a kind of rigging. Call these facts value judgments if you like…
**Respectfully, you’re arguing, not listening. I never questioned whether it’s the fact that some elections involve some form of fraud. I pointed out that “forming an opinion, that it’s rigged,” is a value judgment, it’s not the actual fact. That’s two completely different issues. And opinions of this nature, are value judgments, that’s the point. And if we’re truly interested in observing the nature of human conflict, it involves these psychological value judgments, that are confused for the fact, or truth. The psychological beliefs the brain registers as “my opinion,” “what ‘I’ believe is true.”
1 Like
I get your point but you miss mine. The question of whether a statement is true or false is a matter of opinion.
We’re living in a time where “freedom” means atheism or hypnotism, depending on whichever one works for you. Most of us are hypnotized, the rest of us are confident that we’re not, and there may be humans who are completely cognizant, but we wouldn’t be able to tell.
We can barely tell fact from fiction and fantasy. We’re too self-absorbed to see how self-absorbed we are. We talk knowingly about what and what not to do, but honestly, what little we know is never enough, and often, mistaken.
Usually that’s what the mind does, but when the mind realizes how inadequate it is and acknowledges its weakness or stupidity without feeling shame or guilt, its conditioning is surpassed by its understanding.
1 Like
Not only”weak or stupid “, but to preserve the illusion of its actually existing.