Through these discussions - What will the members of this forum ‘achieve’?
I personally would like to see if communication and learning (of something new) is possible between human beings.
Can we explain something to someone that they don’t already know. And vice versa.
Specifically, I would like to see if it possible to describe the human condition in such a way as to get a clearer picture of our dependance on fear and delusion.
I would also love to talk about the experience of psychological death (as opposed to the hypotheses) - but we seem to come up against either a lack thereof, or modesty, or confused interpretations, or difficuty of translation.
I think the illusion / delusion began when we very young and were ‘deluded’ into the belief that there was beside a physical body, there was an ‘owner’ of that body. An owner with a name and quite separate from the body and all the other bodies as well.
But that aside here is what came up for ‘me’ upon reading your post. It originated from a talk with K and DB about reaching the ‘wall’ of yourself. Coming up against it. Thought / desire finally exhausts itself beating against it, imagining ways under, over or around it…but in the end, nothing ‘works’. Even the slightest desire at that point keeps the ‘wall’ building machinery at work. The desire to escape is the wall itself. Every movement to escape is the wall itself…There is nothing that can be done and no one to do it. No one can reach over the wall and pull us out,etc… So all movement of resistance ends when it is seen clearly that anything other than movement with ‘what is’ , the movement of life itself, ‘freedom’ cannot be…
1 Like
Amen MoFos!
Great description of what needs to happen for there to be complete surrender.
I know some here don’t like the concept of surrender -as in “who is it that surrenders?” But the answer : It is me (the self, despite its argued non-existence) that surrenders and dies, suits me fine. It is the self that dies. It is the delusion that gives up and dies; because it sees that it is the prisoner and the cage.
It is the protocol that comes up against itself.
This reminds me of the robot that has 2 rules : no self harm and no harm to humans. But unfortunately finds itself in a predicament where it has to break one of these rules in order to uphold the other - in the movies the robot usually starts smoking at this point and shuts down in order not to set its brain on fire.
I think it is only fitting that the victim (ie. self) and the perpetrator (ie. self) participate in their own liberation/demise. Call me romantic - but I’m willing to debate this issue.
Very true. ‘I cannot do anything about this’ is the very definition of surrender. In any K talk on any topic such as fear, desire, suffering etc we will find that the first 45 minutes is all enquiry and examination. How we avoid fear, escape from it, yield to it, try to suppress it, go beyond it. Towards the final 15 minutes K points out that the observer is the observed, so the observer is also fear itself and by various ploys explained earlier the observer perpetuates itself. Without using the term surrender, K asks whether one can watch this truth with total attention by gathering all energy that is being wasted in suppression and escapes. ‘Make no effort’ is the basic attribute of surrender. A few people have told me after some of K’s talks in India that his teachings are pure bhakthi or surrender if one follows him all the way to the end.
I remember Jack Pine writing something in the old Kinfonet site which struck me a lot - he said, more or less, that Krishnamurti seemed to have found a way of constantly discovering things as if for the first time. When I first heard K speak in a television interview many years ago, I felt a strong sense of freshness and newness about what he was saying and I found this very communicative. In his talks, he spoke about fear, dependence, violence, etc. many times, but listening to him speak I never felt that it was simply him passing on knowledge. There was always something tremendously alive and engaging in what he said as if indeed he was discovering, as he went along with the audience, as if for the first time.
I think that it’s important, if at all possible, that this quality of newness and freshness is present in our dialogues here.
1 Like
So, do we gather here - because,
- inspired to speak about K’s teaching or
- as a disciple or
- We see our own fear, sufferings, etc… and actually in a urge to get rid of this ego?
I choose :1.
K’s teaching seems excellent, and exchanges may help clear up confusion about the teaching.
1 Like
I choose :1.
K’s teaching seems excellent, and exchanges may help clear up confusion about the teaching.
So, most of the teachings of K - is about to get rid of this ‘ego’. Because, in every moment, K feels frustrated - when every one discuss about a ‘change’ verbally, and not ‘actually’ want to attain the state of ‘love’.
So, you choose No. 3 too. Right?
Can you explain why you think this - or provide a link to some part of the teaching that indicates this please.
If we really understood what fear and suffering was, surely it would be less of a problem? And I don’t see why it would provoke an aversion to ego (whatever ego means) - surely this fear and suffering based on the existence or dependance on ego, is just further suffering and fear?
‘ego’ means ‘I’, ‘self-concerned’, ‘self-centered’ etc… In K’s view, this ‘I’ is the ‘image’ which limits one to inquire deeper.
The fear & sufferings raise only because of ‘ego’ which is the ‘I’.
Here, I shared you a video about this,
1 Like
K asks : “if you see that the very essence of you is hurt (ie. suffering is the basis of identity), what would you do?”
One may think about this question and come to the conclusion : “I must get rid of ego” (or get rid of the self).
Fortunately, K also adds : “There must be no resistance, no withdrawal” (from what is seen) and also that “the process of thought (that arrives at conclusions) is hurt” (the self is based on thought)
If our answer to the human condition is to attempt to “get rid of ego”, is this not just further movement of the self?
But even if something is wrong with this description : How do we get rid of ego?
No. When we really ‘see’ ‘how this fear, sufferings,etc. disturbs the life of humanity’, actually - the immediate ‘action’ is - 'to get rid of ‘I’", that’s how David Bohm came to meet K. It’s not a desire and It’s not a ‘movement’. it’s a flow, the right action.
Yes - the immediate action. Not the conclusion, or goal, or idea, or desire.
If there is not immediate action (without effort, time, intent) this means that “the whole movement of self”, has not been “seen”.
No, we are ‘seeing’ this movement, and accepting this as a ‘belief’ , that ’ Human Beings suffers’, and move on, and try to live with ‘sufferings’.
Sorry - I don’t understand what you are pointing to here :
However - regarding “getting rid of the ego” - seeing the whole movement is key, not just desire to escape - because how do we strive for something that we do not understand. How do we flee from something if that thing is us?
We are suffering. That’s a fact. Right?. Then what happens furthur?. We do stop our discussions and try to adopt with sufferings. Right?
If that is acceptable (this of course includes the suffering that we impose on, or cause to our loved ones), I suppose that is what will happen - It is what has always been happening.
Ok. Shall we discuss about this - without interference of beliefs, knowledge, etc… Are you ready?