Why poor people are more compassionate?
It seems to me that since the self canât die by suicide (trying to bring about its own demise), it can only die naturally from the withering effect of self-knowledge which accrues naturally when the futility of trying to bring an end to self (ego, thought) is seen, and instead of attacking the problem, one is learning about it.
The accrual of self-knowledge is selfless action because it does not seek to change or bring an end to self, and this honest interest in what self is doing illuminates it, and (Iâm assuming) brings it gradually out of darkness to die peacefully in the light of exposure.
1 Like
I think this is where the deviousness of thought appearsâŚpretending to take on the mantle of â choice less awareness? And that it is without motive. But its motive is as always, to continue?
Thought definitely seems armed with a strong survival instinct. Thatâs hardly a surprise, right: Thought thinks-feels itâs alive, and all living creatures are driven to protect themselves.
In addition, thought might sincerely believe its 24/7 job/duty is to ensure the well-being of its host organism, minimize their pain, maximize their happiness. Thought might believe that it is (by far) the best choice for this very demanding task. When I see thought in this light, as indefatigable protector, I feel admiration/respect for it, and frustration at the ways it harms itself and its host and others.
1 Like
It probably believes that it is the ONLY choice since âawarenessâ of its own movement is so infrequent. But when choice less awareness is active, present, it is no longer seen, heard as the âthinkerâ, the âdoerâ, the âexperiencerâ etc, it is just thought moving in the wrong space, occupying the mind?
Except of course when itâs dealing with the complicated issues of modern everyday living, which is a lot of the time. So the line between so called technical thought and psychological becomes blurred. Where does âtechnicalâ thought end and âpsychologicalâ begin? What is the line it crosses when it occupies the otherwise and necessary quiet mind?
The mechanism of thought is not devious when one is seriously curious. When you need to know something that canât be faked, you have to find out, get to the bottom of it. If this wasnât true, we wouldnât have the scientific method, and K wouldnât have emphasized the need for self-knowledge.
âThe deviousness of thoughtâ serves the status quo, so unless one is content to live at that level of distortion and dishonesty, one finds out what is true by settling for nothing less than self-evident or demonstrable truth.
1 Like
Yes! The I is deeply woven into the fabric of me, all aspects: mental, physical, spiritual, whatever. To divide thought into the practical and psychological might confuse more than clarify. Or at least to think of these in black and white terms. Maybe a yin/yang approach is better? Yin (the psychological) has some yang in it, yang (the practical) has some yin. Keeping in mind that these are all merely conceptual constructs, superimposed grids on the gridlessness of reality?
To do sculpture say, the artist has to think about materials, technique, knowledge of past work, time to completionâŚmany practical things. This is what I would call practical thinking. Now if I start to think about possible fame say, my future âcelebrityâ , I have to imagine myself in this âfutureâ time, âbecomingâ known eg. I do have to imagine the future when Iâm making the sculpture or making a table but if I do that about âmyselfâ, is that âpsychologicalâ
thought?
Cont:
Also thinking about how to handle a possible future interaction with someone and rehearsing different scenarios in oneâ mind, is that âpsychologicalâ thought? Thinking about the different scenarios can be stressful, create anxiety, etcâŚis ANY thinking that has this effect, âpsychologicalâ? (And unnecessary?)
Is anxiety or psychological stress necessary?!!
The difficulty I have is explaining why pleasant thoughts are also a No-No. The concept to get across is the problem of reinforcing the reality of the self entity - in the sense that my experience is all important despite sometimes not serving any purpose other than its own sense of importance.
This is a difficult sell, especially with the seemingly contrary idea that a healthy sense of self is essential, for example in the psychological growth during childhood.
1 Like
K described it as a âstreamâ of human thought?
We were âinâ it and had to âstep out of itâ. Was that the âentanglement â of awareness (what we are in essence) with the âthingâ eg. the body, the thought, the feelings? Thatâs the way I think about itâŚis that , the stepping out of the stream of thought is our âmaturationâ or âblossomingâ? The mind / brain is quiet, silent, empty when thought is no longer occupying it with unnecessary movement? The self image so necessary for the child, and inevitably painful for the adult , is left behind?
I donât think the stream of thought can be stepped out of until the stream diminishes in volume and speed. In fact, there may be no stepping out at all because there may be nothing to do the stepping. It may be that the stream is rushing so fast and full of content that it overwhelms the context, the ground over and through which it rushes.
The more aware of itself the cataract is of its movement and volume, the less there is of it, and the slower it moves as an occasionally babbling brook, an essential part of the landscape.
1 Like
K:âSir, Iâve made simple enough: have you ever looked at a flower, or the movement of the sea, or the new moon, just a slip in the western sky, with all your senses? With all your attention? If you have, which I am sure most have, even for a second, in that attention the self is not operating, because the thing is so marvellously beautiful. For that second, the self is driven out of oneselfâŚNow, that attention burns away the self, self-interestâŚOr that means the very brain cells themselves have undergone a change.â Have you ever looked with all your senses? | J. Krishnamurti (jkrishnamurti.org)
1 Like
Can we say that illusions of reality, are stopping us to love?
Could be, though not necessarily. Illusion does not necessarily equal an inability to love.
Fear might though.
Hi mac, I think we need to re look into fear and love aspects of human beings. Got confused
Iâm just saying that me being worried about myself just leaves less space for caring about the suffering in others.
The âselfâ (me) can only be âselfishâ. It can expand its selfishness to include âothersâ in its concerns. The family, the tribe, the congregation, the âreligionâ, the country etc, it can âidentifyâ itself with them and kill to defend them and mourn their lossesâŚit has the only âcompassionâ it is capable of having : a selfish compassion. Real compassion as I see it can only come about for us when the conditioned psychological straight jacket, no matter what color it is, is removed from the brain and the division of âme and the otherâ ends. And its removal also as I see it, can only come about through the ongoing awareness of its presence.
2 Likes
What about : compassion comes from seeing how selfishly we suffer?