In a talk about observation, Krishnamurti asked, “Is there greed without the object”?
Thought says No, there can be no greed, no desire, without something particular, specific, to activate the sensation, the feeling, the urge, the will to have and to hold. That is, greed is dormant but ready to spring into action when a suitable object appears, and suitable objects are constantly arising and appearing throughout the day, just as dreaded objects of fear, loathing, and aversion arise and appear constantly.
Since everything I want is inextricably attached to everything I don’t want, I work at wanting less and tolerating more of what I don’t want. But working at this does not bring an end to the corridor of opposites I am confined to and defined by.
Everything I do is just the modification of I, and I is the problem (no matter how well modified), which means that nothing I do can solve the problem. So can I do nothing?
J. Krishnamurti Online sent out this quote just yesterday.
“Desire is never contradictory; the objects of desire are contradictory.”
From Public Talk 2, Saanen, 14 July 1964
Inquiry asks: “Is there greed without the object”? Personally, I would look at it through the lenses of the above quote.
So, I would say that desire is natural, but it’s objects “are contradictory”.
Then the second question would be, what is desire when it’s objects are not contradictory ?
Of course, I will be asked, why do you assume desire is natural ? I can say this: I can’t say desire is unnatural either …? So, how do we start the dialogue on desire… and its obejcts ?
Is desire necessary for continued living? Do all living things have desire, or do they just respond to biological need?
If I’m thirsty, in need of hydration, do I desire water or do I just need it? Is my need for water like my desire for a Mercedes when I can only afford public transportation?
Inquiry, I do not know what K meant by saying objects “are contradictory”. But I will propose this topic on our Kinfonet dialogue.
The other statement, as expressed above “I would say that desire is natural” is my statement, not K’s.
I do remember K saying - and I am paraphrasing K now : that he has nothing against desire…
Inquiry, I posted those 2 short statements about desire without reading the full text, so I can’t know what K means, but the fact these short statements are apparently contradictory makes me think that desire, prior to it’s projection into objects, or prior to end its longing towards objects, is a state/movement free of contradiction. K talks about the “birth of desire”.
So, before desire is born, what is that which later we call desire ?
You’re putting the emphasis on the teachings rather than observing your own desire as it arises, and it arises more times a day than you may think. Just watch it, from beginning to end, and it won’t matter what K said.
Desire is one of the easiest things to watch because it is so impulsive, craving, and repetitive. It’s like your whining toddler pointing at candy in a store, demanding that you procure it.
Inquiry…when you ask me: " Do you know what K meant by that ?" & “What did K mean by "desire is contradiction?” I take these 2 questions as an invitation to respond from my own experience/understaning while remaining close to K’s teaching …But it looks I misunderstood you.
Desire is not a contradiction between what I want and what I have - it’s a comparison…one that makes what I have seem so inadequate, insufficient, inferior, etc., that I must I have what I want.
!