I thought that evidence is much more real thing, than logic, or theory.
What do you mean by āmore realā?
Evidence and logic are 2 different things.
Evidence means : facts that indicate that something is so. For example, if the garden is wet, this might indicate that it has been raining, or that the sprinklers were on.
Logic is what we call reasoning that avoids coming to incorrect conclusions (historically the study of logic is based on evidence) - it has rules like : A equals A. A is not equal to notA. x cannot be equal to A and notA.
A theory is a model of some process or phenomenon. To be demonstrated to be true, it must be logically sound and be backed up by evidence.
Well, my English is far from excellent.
What I want to say: when we talk about things related to consciousness and if we are serious, we should talk about facts. About our perceptions If I can use this word here
1 Like
Youāre too quick to answer your own questions.
Of course we know what change involves. We experience change every day, every hour, every moment, and we constantly adjust. Sometimes we enjoy the change, and sometimes we donāt.
Once one sees that any fear generated by this invitation is also mechanical thought, thought has nowhere else to go. And the cessation of the mechanism is the birth of something else, something quite different; it is life after death.
This is wishful thinking. Neither you nor I know this is true, actual, despite our hopeful belief that it is.
First of all, do you accept unconditionally and wholeheartedly the invitation to change? If you donāt, you are wasting your time asking these questions about what someone else knows and whether what they are saying is based on something actual or wishful. But if you say, āYes, I accept,ā not knowing where it might lead, then you have already stepped out of an old pattern of being convinced that what you are doing is right before you act. You are instead taking a step into the unknown.
Of course we know what change involves at the superficial everyday level. But we are talking now of a total psychological revolution. One cannot be so blasƩ about this. We may experience a thousand changes daily, but it is important to understand that the radical transformation of consciousness is not an experience at all. It is not something either to enjoy or to get disturbed about. Those feelings of enjoyment and discomfort belong to the experiencer, the thinker, the observer, the one who is living as though separate from the rest of existence. They are part of a mechanical way of living, established by thought, that can only lead us into greater depths of despair.
As we said, mechanical thought is all we have. It is mechanical thought that says, āBefore I accept this invitation to change I must know that I shall be safe.ā So mechanical thought resists change. There is nothing else it can do. It cannot even embrace change, except as another mechanical thought, as a concept or an idea. Thought therefore is stuck, trapped, impotent. Whatever it does to extricate itself from all this must be a wrong move.
So thought dies away. It stops. It goes completely quiet. And there is life eternal after this death of thought, which is the death of me and my self-centred experiences. Then we are free to meet one another and live a wholly different kind of life.
Now if you have questions at the end of all this then it is important to find out from where is coming the invitation to change. If it is coming from inside of thought then it is still part of a mechanical process. But if you hear it in the morning call of the birds or in the rustle of the trees before an afternoon storm breaks, if nature itself is inviting you to change, then there it is. And there is a natural response which doesnāt involve any thinking at all.
Must one be invited to turn attention to what one is doing?
If you donāt, you are wasting your time asking these questions about what someone else knows and whether what they are saying is based on something actual or wishful. But if you say, āYes, I accept,ā not knowing where it might lead, then you have already stepped out of an old pattern of being convinced that what you are doing is right before you act. You are instead taking a step into the unknown.
If you believe any of this, I invite you to get help.
it is important to understand that the radical transformation of consciousness is not an experience at all.
And of course you know this becauseā¦
So thought dies away. It stops. It goes completely quiet. And there is life eternal after this death of thought, which is the death of me and my self-centred experiences. Then we are free to meet one another and live a wholly different kind of life.
Thanks so much for reminding us of what Krishnamurti saidā¦
So what are you doing? What exactly are you doing here? Why are you bothering with all of this? If one is so sure about it then, naturally, no invitation is necessary to turn attention to what one is doing. But we are talking about an invitation to change at the roots of oneās being. There are a thousand reasons to decline the invitation; and perhaps you have another nine hundred and ninety-nine reasons left within you.
Or you donāt need any reason at all. You just jump in and do it. Do you need a reason to listen to the birds? Do you need a reason to love somebody? Such reasons are the postponements of change.
For the conditioned brain, perception is distorted by beliefs, biases, assumptions, hopes, fears, i.e., psychological content, so we canāt really call it āperceptionā because, as direct as it may be for the first microsecond, it is no such thing henceforth.
It seems that I understand you. But I meant something else. Maybe, āperceptionā isnāt the right word. But what I wanted to say: Maheshji speaks to us about some radical change, completely different life, so, I just wanted to know, what is it he is talking about, whether it is something real for him (that so called āperceptionā) or he meant some theory.
If it was real for him he would be talking to millions of people - not just us.
The fact is, anyway, that he did not answer this question, but continued to talk about other people and their supposed attitudes and prejudices
There is but one human brain, which is your brain. Within this brain there is but one self, which is yourself. And the self is a problem entirely put together by thought.
Our challenge is to find out if we can approach, meet, talk and live with one another in a proper healthy relationship without thought. That is all. That is it. That is the invitation of the bird, the wind, the trees, the whole of nature, which gets on quite well without thought; and also it is the invitation of love and intelligence which exists when the mind has freed itself from the confines of the past. Call it the invitation of the teachings, if that makes it simpler.
I hope this is a good enough answer. It is not about millions. There are no millions. There is only you, your life, your confusions, your desires, your hurts, your pain. You create the millions. And you create the wars and battles within these millions, within society; nobody else is responsible for it but you. So there is no answer outside of yourself. You are the problem, the question and the answer combined.
There is a direct perception of the truth, which does not belong to anyone. It is your perception too when you just look at it and listen to it without any reaction of thought. And you will find that a great change has taken place without any effort on your part, without any involvement of the self.
1 Like
How does this work? What reasons do you have to believe this? And do those reasons make sense?
For example, are any of the following true :
- people with a large audience speak the truth. (or are free from the known or whatever)
- people who speak the truth have a large audience.
- people who only speak to a couple of friends, cannot speak the truth
PS. If I believe that someone who did speak the truth in the past, did have a large audience, we should first consider whether that belief or fact can be used as an argument before using it.
PPS. No one is making the argument that Mahesh is a purveyor of fine truths (so far)
1 Like
Dear Valer, What does it matter?
Please consider the following :
Even if someone (eg. Mahesh) had some insight, they cannot give you that insight. All they can offer is a description - meaning some words.
So whether you are talkng to a Buddha or an idiot, it is only the relation that you have with the words that has any meaning.
K says it is better for you not to listen to Buddhas, for you will be even more corrupted by your own desire, by the authority.
Also, insight itself has its own dangers - we always corrupt that insight, which is why we need friends we can trust to show us that we are being self-centered.
Douglas, of course one person is not giving his insight, or whatever it be directly to other person. Yes, we communicate with each other with the help of words. But Iām just talking not about that. What is namely taking place? One person is talking to somebody about things far from ordinary, about just different reality. And it makes the situation completely different: either he emphasized text**really knows what he is talking about, or he speaks about some ideas. Here this difference is of great importance
Maybe if we look at your statement slowly and carefully together, we might see the full meaning of it. We might see what is of great importance.
First question : how can we tell whether we are talking to someone who has had insight?
I do not quite understand your point, Douglas
Please explain, what is troubling you exactly?
Iām suggesting we look at what you have said, to see what it means, what it implies. But of course only if you are interested.
Do you understand the question?
I did not mean trouble. I just asked Maheshji a question. He just did not answer it
1 Like
Okay no worries - I think heās trying to say something now