There must be a better way of saying this
I just came upon this:
In the late 1980s, Lieserl, the daughter of the famous genius, donated 1,400 letters, written by Einstein, to the Hebrew University, with orders not to publish their contents until two decades after his death. This is one of them, for Lieserl Einstein.
âŚâWhen I proposed the theory of relativity, very few understood me, and what I will reveal now to transmit to mankind will also collide with the misunderstanding and prejudice in the world.
I ask you to guard the letters as long as necessary, years, decades, until society is advanced enough to accept what I will explain below.
There is an extremely powerful force that, so far, science has not found a formal explanation to. It is a force that includes and governs all others, and is even behind any phenomenon operating in the universe and has not yet been identified by us.
This universal force is LOVE.
When scientists looked for a unified theory of the universe they forgot the most powerful unseen force.
Love is Light, that enlightens those who give and receive it.
Love is gravity, because it makes some people feel attracted to others.
Love is power, because it multiplies the best we have, and allows humanity not to be extinguished in their blind selfishness. Love unfolds and reveals.
For love we live and die.
Love is God and God is Love.
This force explains everything and gives meaning to life. This is the variable that we have ignored for too long, maybe because we are afraid of love because it is the only energy in the universe that man has not learned to drive at will.
To give visibility to love, I made a simple substitution in my most famous equation.
If instead of E = mc2, we accept that the energy to heal the world can be obtained through love multiplied by the speed of light squared, we arrive at the conclusion that love is the most powerful force there is, because it has no limits.
After the failure of humanity in the use and control of the other forces of the universe that have turned against us, it is urgent that we nourish ourselves with another kind of energyâŚ
If we want our species to survive, if we are to find meaning in life, if we want to save the world and every sentient being that inhabits it, love is the one and only answer.
Perhaps we are not yet ready to make a bomb of love, a device powerful enough to entirely destroy the hate, selfishness and greed that devastate the planet.
However, each individual carries within them a small but powerful generator of love whose energy is waiting to be released.
When we learn to give and receive this universal energy, dear Lieserl, we will have affirmed that love conquers all, is able to transcend everything and anything, because love is the quintessence of life.
I deeply regret not having been able to express what is in my heart, which has quietly beaten for you all my life. Maybe itâs too late to apologize, but as time is relative, I need to tell you that I love you and thanks to you I have reached the ultimate answer! â.
Your father Albert Einstein
1 Like
I doubt there is any better way to say it because the saying is never the doing. It seems we are always trying to capture the words and failing to grasp the essence behind the words.
At the moment of anger, there is only an explosion of energy; there is no âwhat isâ until the observer comes in and calls it âangerâ, attaching the label in the hope of taming the beast. The label then goes on to create another manifestation of the beast at another time in another scenario with other people. So the observer is the sole arbiter of what is. But there is really no observer at all apart from this desire to label what is seen and heard and felt. There is only the energy created in relationship which the observer calls anger; and the observer is formed in the resistance to or the movement away from this energy. This energy has neither order nor disorder; it just comes and goes. But the moment thought gets involved, it must seek order. Therefore it produces an image of order as the observer who is separate from the disorderly explosion of energy. That observer doesnât really exist. And thought doesnât have to do all that. This is the whole point. For thought to be supremely orderly, it must act in a totally different manner which doesnât bring into being an entity caught in time. For when it brings a partial response to any kind of psychological crisis, thought is being disorderly, which is the application of labels and judgements from the past in order to secure a safer future - and there is no such thing.
So âwhat-isâ is the misconstruing of what actually is.
âWhat isâ is the âuniverseâ. Thought has broken it all up into âtreesâ, âanimalsâ, âangerâ, âlossâ âyouâ and âmeââŚ
For the observer, there is no what actually is. The observer has been put together by thought.
Pilgrim,
Considering how Einstein purportedly knew what love was, but leaving his dying wife alone, to bury himself in his work, I wondered about that quote, also about Einsteinâs capacity to love. When there is love, one doesnât abandon oneâs dying wife⌠I have no doubt that Einsteinâs idea of love was about as close to everyoneâs idea of love, and has nothing to do with real love (aka compassion).
Thanks for the article, which I think bears mentioning also the conclusion:
âThis document is not by Einstein. The family letters donated to the Hebrew University - referred to in this rumor - were not given by Lieserl. They were given by Margot Einstein, who was Albert Einsteinâs stepdaughter. Many of those letters were published in Volume 10 of The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein in 2006 and in subsequent volumes, in chronological order.â Dr. Kormos-Buchwald
So, not penned by Einstein!
Added: When there is love, there is no feeling, no words to describe this⌠as both would feel loved - so saying âI love youâ would only be used when there wasnât a state of this love (sorry, but this is difficult to describeâŚ)
When there is love, it is not as the alleged quote by Einstein put forward as a matter of attraction. Attraction is an aspect of eros⌠Please understand that love (compassion) can be felt towards someone for whom there is personal psychological/intellectual repulsion - even physical repulsion. Compassion transcends attraction/repulsion. And when there is love, it is not a question of being a âpowerful generator of loveâ⌠not at all, that supposedly preexists within - which is completely false. Most parents do not love their children, and hence we have the world that we have. Moreover, unlike the quote suggested, one cannot give nor receive love, which is tantamount to referring to love as a sort of transaction. Either there is love, or there isnât. And love is not âGodâ as Einstein said. There is something besides us, besides compassion, which exists outside of us, that which is most holy⌠but Einstein or whoever wrote those lines never got close to it.
Second Addition: it just dawned on me that the expression of:
reveals what most physicists know - that the splitting of the atom - releasing energy, resulting in dropping two atomic bombs on Japan (using any and all means to end WWII - deplorable), is what influenced the authorâs (whoever that is) understanding of what ultimate power is - and this is what evil is, as so correctly understood by Oppenheimer:
"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."
Now, it is rather also deplorable that the use and control of nature is what most people think humanity is here for (success/failure duality), and is what has resulted in what we all are stuck with: climate change & endemics, not to mention capitalism, etc⌠(one recalls Michael Mooreâs film: Capitalism: A Love Story (2009) - the ultimate oxymoron.
You mean there is no actual âwhat actually isâ, but only the reasonable assumption of actuality, based on evidence that our conditioning is altering perception. We donât really know whatâs happening, but the preponderance of evidence indicates that our perception is altered by our beliefs and biases.
as well as the limits of our senses. We can create instruments that can detect what our senses canât but they are also limited.
Analogies can only go so far but , imagine you are a cell in a human body, somewhere, the liver, the pancreas, etc and you are going about your business, living out your life, etc, but you somehow begin to wonder where you are. You see the immediate environment but wonder if there is something beyond what you perceiveâŚCould that cell imagine the whole human body that it is a part of?
Similarly can the human brain which wonders here on earth, imagine, what it is a part of?
I hope you donât mind me butting in here but I understand the following - The tree obviously exists so we have the reality of the tree as âwhat isâ. The problem is that I canât see the tree as it actually is because the reality of the tree has to pass through the filter of my conditioning. I look at the tree and think, âThatâs an Evergreen Oak and its name in Latin is Quercus ilex. It doesnât lose its leaves in winter âŚâ
So my previous knowledge of trees or a particular tree, through thought, prevents my direct perception of what really is and distorts it. If I look at the tree with a silent mind and observe closely the colours, shapes and movement of the leaves, branches and trunk and listen without thought rushing in, I will be more in contact with the reality of the tree as my seeing and hearing will be less distorted.
Of course, I could be wrong about this and may be barking up the wrong tree.
1 Like
Life is a movement in learning and we know what Krishnamurti means by learning. So, there is no point in staying with what we once knew and refuse to see everyday life according just to that. Are we learning everyday and for that matter being aware that weâre alive? If we donât learn weâre simply rotting, missing the opportunity to be human beings.
We can imagine we are tiny cells/particles in the body of the universe.
But what we canât imagine (except in a very hazy way) is what the term nonduality or truth or enlightenment points to. Of course that doesnât stop silly people like me from trying ⌠over and over and over.
Does missing an opportunity make one something other than human?
1 Like
Inquiry,
Being human in the general sense is what we all are. The problem is we donât fully know what being human implies, what particular role weâre playing in this world, what our potential really is. Krishnamurti says somewhere that weâre not accomplished human beings and and there are hints that suggest to me that we may simply turn into fictitious human beings, like when for example Krishnamurti says that if we lose contact with nature we lose touch with humanity or when he says that when one compares oneself to another one is destroying himself. He also says that to live humanly, sanely, one has to change and also that governments or such want efficient technicians, not human beings. If thought really is matter as much as the floor, the wall, the telephone are matter as Krishnamurti contends and if we spend our life under the absolute control of thought, we turn out to be just matter, thatâs what we can conclude, so there will be no place for our transformation.
Jess
I think that there will be very little âtransformationâ. âThingsâ seem to be going against anything like that: âwhat is good for everyone, not just me, etc.â It seems though that something that has come into the world with our evolution from the apes is of a different magnitude. But we are handling it very badly. We are not in K.'s words âfloweringâ. If you are immersed in Nature as I am, you can glean what might be our problem. Our complication. We are complicated. We have created a âfutureâ and it terrifies us, especially our âendingâ.
Dan,
Yes, I also see that weâre complicated and weâre not flowering. We spend our lives more and more superficially, shoddy lives as Krishnamurti puts it. He says that the individual (in the general sense of individual) is âthe little. conditioned, miserable entity satisfied with his little gods and his little traditions, whereas a human being is concerned with the total welfare, the total misery and total confusion of the worldâ. We may live in nature, surrounded by nature but we miss this perception of âthe splendour in the grassâ and âthe glory in the flowerâ that the poet tells us about.
It was a âmistakeâ for K to say such a thing wasnât it? Itâs a judgement: youâre âshoddyâ and Iâm not. That sets up the goal: stop being shoddy, satisfied, miserable, etcâŚbe like me. Shoddiness, et al are comparisons. If one âstrivesâ to be ânon-shoddy, it misses the point doesnât it?
But who knows what happens in the mind of a child whoâs told that heâs the âWorld Teacherâ!
I think Krishnamurti means to make people look at the way they are living, not comparing to somebody else, even to himself. Just look without any prejudice and weâll be able to decide whether weâre living shoddy lives or not. And of course you know as well as I do that Krishnamurti says that when we really look at that shoddiness it will stop immediately and weâll change our way of living for good. Itâs not easy to see it, though.
K: âThe trees are full of bloom. Even up here on the slight breeze coming up the valley you smell the orange blossom and look down the valley and see the many orange trees and feel the quiet, still, breathless air. But you have come upon something that is most precious, that can never be told to another. They may find it, but you have it, grasp it and adore it.â
Krishnamurti to Himself
4/23/1983
To discover the nature of what actually is, whose quest is this?