Hi Charley
I think that’s right. It is the ‘desire’ to be free, end suffering, be something other than what is, that is the impediment, the source as you say. JK put it this way that the “mind is intelligence” and that “craving” clouds the mind. So as Huguette I think was saying that wishing to get rid of craving is just more of the same. Wouldn’t a description of the state that is called for in the face of our ‘dilemma’, the state of ‘not-knowing in the moment’. As regards thought, it seems to not be open to the moment at all but only to its ‘conclusions’. Each word occurs in the moment as does the space between each word but the moment is disregarded in the expectation of the completion or conclusion of the thought form. So thought IS time in that sense.
Then why not join the Wednesday or the Saturday dialogue group? I can assure you that no-one is imaginary there.
First of all, am I conditioned at all?
This is a serious question; and probably, if you are interested, we should use it to start a new thread as this one has run its course.
This is to avoid the issue posed by your behaviour in relationship here yet again, which comes as no surprise, so I will address it in your absence.
Whenever Krishnamurti looked at the actual nature of self and its suffering, its sorrow, he did so with tremendous sensitivity and awareness of both the subtlety and the depth of the issue all round. You do not bring anything of the kind to bear in your dealings with others here, so when you embrace a set of purely intellectual fixations, you are merely a man waving a big stick around, indulging the feeling of importance it gives you, while showing no responsibility - which is to say responsiveness.
You continuously trumpet looking together now in relationship, yet routinely ignore the points others make, and the questions they put to you, which is to ‘ghost’ them. Obviously you are ego, you are conditioning, you are hurt, you are damage, and this is the way it goes with the self.
That’s why I am suggesting to open it up in another forum. Then, I hope, you won’t feel like a ghost.
I doubt it. A doubt is a question. Isn’t it?. We can’t know what other person say is right/wrong. But we can doubt it. We can question it.
You might have a different view from what Truth says. But, it doesn’t mean, you are right (or) truth is right. Just pointing out that what one person says is wrong but not questioning it, will only lead into a debate (or) battle among ‘self’s. This ‘non-questioning’ dialogue will create a feeling of ‘pride’ (or) ‘authority’ within one, and also hurts another one’s feelings “I know and you don’t know. I’m right and you are wrong”.
Dialogues in the form of ‘questions’ are the only way to sow the seeds between each other.
I feel that “if i feel I am strong about something and no doubt/question about it, it means I am not open to everything and closed to that something”.
So, questioning everything, even that something, let us reveal everything and just not get caught in a belief/idea/delusion/authority.
Hi Charley,
The “me” is seen, its nature, the content of consciousness, psychological time and knowledge, and so on. That is clearly seen: it is an illusion, an illusory entity, put together mechanically, automatically, habitually, by the thought process of the brain from the contents of the vast repository of memory.
Is the seeing itself put together by memory? Is it a conclusion or an idea springing out of the past? Is that “me” all there is to the human being? Are awareness, affection, intelligence, compassion, beauty, and so on, merely movements made by the past within the brain? Is all seeing, is every question which arises tied or tethered to the past?
Whenever the me “coalesces”, the process can be seen. Is this seeing part of the process?
Dear Huguette, hello,
Yes, one stands up and waves one hands in the air and sees quite clearly that none of it, almost stunned (not sure if that is the good word, as I am not used to these kind of verbal exchanges) in the realization that the “me” wasn’t real; so, yes, it was all an illusion. But my saying it or your saying it will not change or alter anyone’s ideas or beliefs, it is up to everyone to discover that for themselves.
To me, the seeing of all that is not part of thought or memory or of thinking. It is the awakened intelligence which allows for that seeing.
Huguette, you are asking every question… perhaps, the impossible question, right?
For me, every question that arises is all part of enquiry, of thought, of thinking. I cannot tell anyone what they should or shouldn’t do, whether they should or shouldn’t ask questions. All I can say is that thought itself is limited, conditioned. When that is understood, enquiry ends, and that is intelligence. I hope that I am expressing myself correctly here…
I must add here, that were I to say “I am illusion”, that would be a meaningless statement, because that would be false. The “I” cannot know that. That would be tantamount to intellectual word games.
What I had written seems to me (after re-reading) needs some further clarification. It is really seeing what is true in the true, what is false in the false, what is true in the false that can lead to the by-product (consequence) in understanding that none of it was real.
When the ‘I’ says that the “I cannot know”, isn’t that statement also an intellectual word game?
Hi Dan,
Were I to say, “I cannot know … you”, that would be correct, as we are all changing.
Were I to say, “I cannot know … what is beyond thought”, that would also be correct.
Were I to say, “I cannot know,” … as in understanding, then you would be blocking yourself - a kind of defeatist intellectual position, seen and understood more clearly when carefully observing those whose modus operandi starts with the position, “I can know”.
For me Huguette, and I like you, don’t know but I would say from my experience, real ‘seeing’ is of a different dimension. From the dimension of being where “you are the world” is a fact. Not a metaphor and not a reality that thought can comprehend, try as it will. The senses offer up a world of separate and distinct life forms. Each of these forms ,us included, do everything that is within their power to ‘stay alive’. It occurred to me that the ‘violence’ that I witness each day here immersed in nature, the prey / predator arrangement, the life forms feeding on each other, the resistance to it, etc. may not be violence at all but an extremely limited understanding on my part of what is taking place here. In short that there actually is NO division between all life forms, only difference…spectacular variety. To me that is the revelation of “you are the world”. Of course that may all be wrong.
Is this a knowledge that, “thought is limited & conditioned”? Can the I know that “thought is limited”? And just as a knowledge, hearing from a person like Krishnamurti, what can one understand from it?
How you say that “thought is limited”?
Thought is the words, ideas, concepts, etc. The word is a pointer to the thing the object. We use a word in various ways linguistically, intellectually, emotionally, politically, religiously, etc., but fundamentally it is the mental connection with the thing, materialistically. We go further with a word, conceptually, idealistically, futuristically, even spiritually. Basically it is limited to its use.
If you say it is limited to use, with what you are comparing it with and say it is limited? How you come to know it is limited?
We can come to know a dish is sweet, only if we eat another dish which is not sweet. We can know something as false, only if we know what is truth. We can know it is a dream, only when we wake up. Until then, we don’t know (or) can’t describe what it is. Isn’t it?
There is knowledge, and it is the field of thought. As we know this field is vast and diverse. We can talk about anything endlessly. The word is the limitation of thought, but this is just a point to comprehend, and doesn’t mean anything when I am using thought the way I usually do.
Yes. Compared to thoughts, words are limited. Whatever thought one have, expressing it as words is limited to thought.
But, why you say “thought” is limited too? Had you experienced any other and compare it with thoughts, and say it is “limited”?
And another question,
Is it we don’t like “what we are” and try to run away from it and seek ‘the other’ hearsay from others as “I feel ‘the other’. This is limited. We should not be limited”, but not face/look at “what we are” without describing?
Even if we are limited, what is wrong in it? If sufferings comes again, we fear of that suffering and so we don’t want to be limited. But, if we are ready to face whatever ‘sufferings’ in our life, what is there in stopping “being limited”? What is there to stop “thoughts”?
If we are ready to look whatever happens in our life, question everything in this universe, then it doesn’t matter, whether we are fragmented (or) not. Isn’t it?
When we talk about suffering, we may be talking about what we think it is, but the suffering is heartfelt, isn’t it? Or, is the way we talk about something, is this a way of avoiding the actuality? We may believe we are getting somewhere, and the talking helps, but the suffering is profoundly deep. Not some experience, but a fundamentally deep condition of humanity.
Yes. Sufferings is not a talking thing. Only to remain and feel it, but not putting a ‘danger sign’ and staying away from it.
But, we fail to ask these question ourselves. A person like K is needed to point us “What you are doing?”.
We don’t want to suffer and so we ‘fear’ to go through it at present or in future. I feel this is the door. This is the common ground. Staying away from it, comforting us to not meet it, and to find a better position (or) safer place before another sufferings comes - is what happens.
In a conversation with Swami Venkatesananda,
Swamiji: It is just this: the ‘if’ and ‘but’. The door is there. I have to go through. But there is this ignorance of where the door is. You, by pointing out, remove that ignorance.
Krishnaji: But I have to walk there. Sir, you are the guru and you point out the door. You have finished your job.
Swamiji: So darkness of ignorance is removed.
Krishnaji: No, your job is finished and it is now for me to get up, walk, and see what is involved in walking. I have to do all that.
Swamiji: That is perfect.
Krishnaji: Therefore you do not dispel my darkness.
Swamiji: I am sorry. Now I do not know how to get out of this room. I am ignorant of the existence of a door in a certain direction and the guru removes the darkness of that ignorance. And then I take the necessary steps to get out.
Krishnaji: Sir, let us be clear. Ignorance is lack of understanding, or the lack of understanding of oneself, not the big self or the little self. The door is the ‘me’ through which I have to go. It is not outside of ‘me’. It is not a factual door as that painted door. It is a door in me through which I have to go. You say, ‘Do that.’
Swamiji: Exactly.
Krishnaji: You, as a guru, have finished. You do not become important. I do not put garlands around your head. I have to do all the work, all the work. You have not dispelled the darkness of ignorance. You have, rather, pointed out to me that, “You are the door through which you yourself have to go.”
Swamiji: But would you, Krishnaji, accept that that pointing out was necessary?
Krishnaji: Yes, of course. I point out, I do that. We all do that. I ask a man on the road, “Will you please tell me which is the way to Saanen”, and he tells me; but I do not spend time and devotion and love and say, “My God, you are the greatest of men.” That is too childish!
We need someone to point out that “you are escaping from ‘me’. Face it” and only then I face it and many questions arise within me. Until that pointing out, I am ignorant of these all. Even after that pointing out, some are unable to get up and walk but fighting with other person with all the words and knowledge I acquired from K,etc… (or) caught in an illusion that “I reached the door”.
In my view, questions never stop unless one is ‘actually free’ (or) ‘realized the ignorance’ (or) ‘enlightened the ‘self’’.
What do you feel?