What is more important than this actual, empty meeting between Paul and Klaus? Something that is of past or future? Is that more important than what is happening nie?
What is the initial sensation, before thought gets hold of it? There is a sensation, a response, and then the urge to name it. Can there be just the response with no naming, therefore no dissipation of the energy behind it?
Weāre all pretending to know what-should-be.
Which means we never just simply look at what is, at what we are.
Seeing clearly would be simple if we didnāt presume to know what should be, thereby trading simplicity for the complication of the condition we have imposed.
I am a bundle of second-hand images. Those images whirl around and create the sense of a centre. The confusion at the edges of my life, in my relationships with others, is what I see projected back upon me as the centre of myself. There is no centre to me; there are only the images. When I see just one image as it appears in my consciousness as a thought-feeling and donāt react to that by explaining it away or suppressing it, the image-making process is exposed in an instant and comes to an end. Then I have seen the self as it reacts. And this perception is the only accurate psychological action. Everything else is reaction.
This is the new what-should-beā¦and this is what it promises:
the image making process is exposed in an instant and comes to an end.
What-should-be is oneās chosen authority, effectively preventing unauthorized seeing.
1 Like
Thatās just then a reaction to it. You have merely formed another image. You are still caught in the cycle, only now at a much deeper level, because you have put together an intellectual formulation of an escape from the cycle. There is no escape, none whatsoever. One cannot escape from the confines of oneself.
Setting out ātogetherā and starting at āthe same placeā. Are these two conditions that must be met in order to find out if it is possible to live entirely without fear?
Must there be two of us to do this? Are you saying that one - alone - cannot find out if it is possible to live entirely without fear? If there is only one inquirer, then the two above conditions you set are eliminated.
Perhaps, you are implying that two (or more observers) are needed for objective verification that āliving without fearā is an authentic possibility.
It is far simpler than all that. You and I are responsible for fear; we have produced the thing. It doesnāt exist outside of our relationship. Therefore it is our responsibility to answer this question, not mine alone or yours alone.
I see.
You are right up to a point. Granted, fear of insecurity does arise when there is conflict between me and others. Even if there is the harmony of āpeace on Earth and goodwill among menā, there is still my fear of death.
Fear of punishment is created by manā¦society. So yes human relationships do create the whole punishment and reward problem, it seems. But it all begins in thought. Thought and time are responsible for fear, arenāt they?
Letās explore it, look at it. Is it really about death? Or is it the fear of losing whatever we may have made of life?
Fear of losing all Iām attached toā¦the memories of wonderful experiences, people we love, etc. We fear losing all that.
You put it together and published it. Everyone who operates on the principle of what-should-be adopts it.
Yes, it is about death as in dying of the body which is a āvehicleā I inhabit. It is like piloting a plane that can disintegrate in mid-flight. I cannot land the plane but have to keep flying till it breaks down. I am not afraid of losing anything. I have no attachment to anything, not even my life.
There is no guarantee that my body will die while it is asleep. I wish. It is the experience of the body growing old and eventually dying, yes, the very thought of that breeds fear. It is not a neurosis. I am not overly anxious about this because I am 45 and still in good health. Still, it is not a good place to be alive.
1 Like
I have opened it up for enquiry. I have not put anything together.
What do you mean when you say you are in good health? Is it good health to imagine all the terrible things that may happen to me? But more than that, what am I doing with my life? Whether it is a good place to be alive or not, I am alive; this is my only chance at it. So what will I do?
By good health, I mean health of the body, that state of physical well-being.
What am I doing with my life? Nothing, apart from tending to the body like a servant. Brushing my teeth twice a day, dental cleaning every 4 months, going to the store for groceries once a week, making breakfast and dinner everyday, showering daily, and cleaning the house and doing laundry.
When I first came across a Krishnamurti book about twelve years ago, I was doing more with my life building a career in a good job with a great multi-national organization. Getting married and growing a family were in my plans. There was no way thought would ever come to a stop with so much on my mind then. So, I gave it all up - everything that was not essential - to find the quiet mind.
I have been living by myself since I quit my job and took early retirement ten years ago. My days are free of distractions now. In my quest to find the quiet mind, I discovered that the only distraction I cannot give up is tending to the body as its servant until it dies.
You think it is a good place to be alive and this is your only chance at it. What is it? I would like to be at āthe same placeā your are at.
1 Like
You said, :āWhen I see just one image as it appears in my consciousness as a thought-feeling and donāt react to that by explaining it away or suppressing it, the image-making process is exposed in an instant and comes to an end.ā
If this description of how you supposedly brought image-making to an end is āopening it up for enquiryā, why didnāt you pose it as a question instead of a fait accompli?