Have we learned from krishnamurti how to think by now?

Kinfonet Discussion
61

Art,

I was curious about the origins of the word “art” (apart from how it is used today). Apparently, it comes from a Sanskrit word, rtih “manner, mode”, and from the root, ars- “to fit together”.

Interestingly, online, there was a quote by Yeats:

“Supreme art is a traditional statement of certain heroic and religious truths, passed on from age to age, modified by individual genius, but never abandoned. The revolt of individualism came because the tradition had become degraded, or rather because a spurious copy had been accepted in its stead.” [William Butler Yeats, journal, 1909]

which got me wondering about how an artist like Yeats, having an artist’s partial insight, might have understood art as having certain “religious truths”…

Although, I am not certain at all, I would not be surprised to find that the origin of the word “art” is related in some way to the origin of the word “spiritual”. However, having said this, I have no proof… - mainly 'cause the Sanskrit origin of the word “spiritual” isn’t clear.

I recall K mentioning that an art is not something that can be practised, so I have always suspected that art to K meant more than just some craft or skill…

“Because if one observes one will see that when one practices something repeatedly, over and over again, one’s mind becomes mechanical; it is already mechanical and one adds further mechanical routine to it; so, gradually one’s mind atrophies. It is like a pianist continually practicing the wrong note; no music comes of it. When one sees the truth that no system, no practice, will ever lead to truth, then one abandons them all as fallacious, unnecessary.”
K, The Flame of Attention, Ch. 2, 4th Public Talk at New Delhi, 8 Nov. 1981

62

The ‘art of living’ then, it seems to me, is the realization that you ARE nothing (not-a-thing)! Being ‘something’ sets you apart. That is the road of despair. Being ‘nothing’ is to be ‘the world ‘.

63

In life, we face different kinds of situations over a course, in random manner. Some situations could be against us, some could be in favour and some might effect the life and others might not have an effect. After facing such random events, thinking is inevitable process, which happens inside(in general). How does the mind which has learnt this particular ‘art’ feels the situations compared to the one which is ignorant? Who will teach us this kind of art? How to learn this art, if we do not find one particular teacher?

Mam, in another thread someone said “art” means “putting everything in a right place”. Can this art applicable to thinking process of our mind?

64

I dunno … … … …

65

Dan,
Very well, if you’re enlightened you’re the world because you no longer carry the weight of the self in your relationships. The 'art of living’for those who are not liberated is to watch from moment to moment to see to it that whichever one does is up to the present situation, in its right place. And I’m afraid you won’t be looking to see if you’re the world or not. ‘Water doesn’t know it is water’, Krishnamurti says somewhere.

66

If thought is the master (because we think that our thoughts are the whole of reality) its not in its right place - if thought is one of the potentially useful tools in the toolbox, its in the right place.

Also the art of thinking - being an understanding of and a freedom from, is of course not a skill/ability we can learn/practise/become more proficient at by applying some method/effort.

1 Like
67

Likely true. And the ‘self-image ‘ doesn’t know it is a ‘self-image’.

68

Dan,
I agree on the likely. But we can’t compare water to ‘self-image’. Water exists as a whole whereas self-image is part of a mental mechanism, it has no autonomy, it’s not an entity, it definitely can’t know what it is.

69

I’m saying that ‘self image’ is you, is me and it DOES act autonomously, often destructively so. It acts as if it does exist but it doesn’t…you don’t exist and I don’t exist, that is the ‘thought trick’ that has been played : you are the good person, he is the bad one, that is the spectrum of the self. I think of it as a kind of sleep that we are in. Self induced. This to me is the “house” that is burning.

70

The selfie,

I guess you guys have never heard of the selfie, lots of people take 'em… Do you ever wonder why?
And, of course, the cosmetics industry which caters to so many women… There are millions of women who work at their self-image… right? - and all these women spend an awful lot of money and time and energy working on their self-image? What do you make of them?

71

How so?

This seems to apply to both.

What are we investigating here?

72

The bottom lines of the Krishnamurti message for me are “you don’t exist “, “ you are nothing “(not-a-thing) , “you are the world” and the observer, thinker, experiencer IS the observed, thought, experience.

73

I’m sorry, Dan, I can’t follow you there. I am born without a self-image and in my daily life I may act more under the influence of my self-image or less. I don’t agree with the sleep thing as well. I may have dreams in my sleep, terrible or wonderful things may happen there but when I wake up I see that everything is the same as before I had those dreams and the people or whatever that were part of the dream were not affected by it. ‘The house is burning’ is well quite a different thing, it is this being a slave to images that are infesting our societies,

74

Macdougdoug,
I don’t think we’re investigating anything at this point. I recalled Krishnamurti’s saying ‘water doesn’t know it is water’ in order to make a distinction between being liberated or not. Anyway, Krishnamurti often said that if someone claimed he was enlightened the probability is that he isn’t, but… you never know, really. This was about being nothing is the same as being the world, as Dan put it.

75

Right, the world doesn’t know it is the world.

76

But you are a thing… just as a fly or a cockroach is a thing. You may be confused and befuddled as to exactly what you are, but you are not nothing. Your image/idea of yourself may be fanciful, imaginary, but it is something you’re dealing with constantly.

77

I would suggest that the first thing we should investigate is what we are saying - and more importantly : why we are saying it.

78

Sivaram and Macdougdoug (re your posts 54 to 66),

By “art”, we human beings usually mean fields such as painting, sculpture, music, cabinet-making, dance, acting, writing, weaving, architecture, and so on, don’t we. The skills required to create such “artistic arts” come from acquiring techniques, knowledge, and having innate talent or aptitude. There is still beauty in that.

But, to me, the essential “ingredient” of art is the mysterious energy of creativity or creation which unexpectedly, unpredictably, effortlessly fashions what is new. The source of creativity is not knowledge. As I see it, this quality or energy cannot be learned, practiced or copied through time, knowledge and aptitude. It can be in a painting, a gesture, a look, in words which are unexpectedly made new, and so on.

To me, the brain/mind which is absolutely, irrefutably, unshakably, immovably clear in perceiving or understanding its limitations, cannot help but effortlessly abandon all its heretofore held explanations, theories, beliefs, desires, hopes and so on. Perhaps “abandon” is not the accurate word. “Abandon” implies a deliberate action. Rather it is the very perception and understanding of the illusory nature of the old explanations, efforts, desires, choices, and so on which end them as a dynamic cause of action, as psychological time. So with that ending or destruction, “I” am not living “my” life; relationship is not under “my” control. There is only what is. I don’t know what I (the psyche) will do.

This ending is the total destruction of the known in relationship — not the terrible destruction caused by bombs, poverty, pollution, corruption, greed, brutality. It is the destruction of “my” cherished psychological knowledge, images, “my” cherished illusions acting in relationship. And in this destruction, isn’t something new created? In the new space created by the ending/destruction of the old ideas, ideals, beliefs, plans, and so on, there is an art, an act of creation in relationship, observation, listening.

Something like that.

4 Likes
79

This moment has only just recently come into existence.
It cannot be known - but will give rise to the moment yet to be born.

1 Like
80

Dan,
You say 'the world doesn’t know it ‘s the world’! It could be, I don’t know. But again, we have a problem with the meaning we give to a word. Krishnamurti speaks of ‘knowing with the heart’ as being different than the intellectual knowing. It reminds me of this quote: ‘… when you hear with your heart the world is filled with it and your eyes see clearly’.