Sir,
As I see it, Jiddu explained how things are happening around us, instead of saying how things should be. He investigated with Bohm, many different aspects such as truth, fact, effortless way of life, and other aspects of mind. They both ended up explaining things in their own way.
You have asked two questions in the previous reply,
I mean facts are nothing but a collection of words, which ends up into an explanation but not all explanations can become facts. Those set explanations which hold the reality in our life, are facts. For example, Jiddu said âobserver is the observedâ which is a fact as most of us felt it. My answer to another question is that beliefs, hopes, and another set of explanations coming from the perspective of a conditioned mind would lead to conflict at some point. Having said that, I can say that explanations can change the inner reality of a person at some point if realization take place.
Anyways, in the previous context I was pointing to inner explanations of mind. I asked you that why to abandon inner explanations, what is the need in doing that?
In this particular case, I think even Krishnamurti would have said âMadamâ
Although he fought very hard against this way of seeing things - he would apparently have very much liked us to have been inquiring with him, rather than listening to some teacher explaining things.
Is it spirituality, or psychology?
Anyway what do you mean by spirituality?
I suppose if we mean finding our âultimate purposeâ - I suppose the teaching could be that, in the way that it is supposed to help humanity reach our full potential?
Love, sex, compassion, self, attention, meditation, awareness, beauty, sleep, serenity, mindfulness, kindness, perception, relationship, art and other aspects which I might be missing but you can add.
I feel there is beauty in this kind of investigation, especially with the person who is involved with Jiddu teachings. As you said, I felt nice about discussing spirituality with you either.
There are others in this forum who are resourceful to investigate upon.
I think that the word we are looking for is âAestheticsâ (rather than âspiritualityâ)
I think you are an Aesthete (someone appreciative and sensitive to beauty and art)
Seeing how you make a distinction between explanation and pointing to I understand your explanation. To me it looks a little different. Explanation refers to a whole process, while pointing to indicates a distance. To really see, to understand, insight into the process seems to me only possible by observation the process within yourself. So no distance!
Thereâs no denying the distance between the conditioned mind and the free mind because distance is a matter of time, and thereâs no conditioning without time.
âconditionedâ is in the past but âconditioningâ is present âcontiniousâ we are not aware of this present activity, hence the need for observation.
Your reply gave me a total different perspective to the question, as I was thinking in totally different way. I felt that a mind could be totally free from its effort to get the desired outcome, if it realizes there could be a possibility of something going wrong. At the sametime, mind still puts the effort on things which it is passionate about, without expecting any sort of outcome.
This question touched you from different point of view, yet I feel your answer is quite reasonable.
I most probably donât understand your question - my answer is based on the idea that âthings going wrongâ (or right) is a subjective opinion. And that the selfâs purpose is to detect whatâs going wrong, and make it right.
