Having no fear of losing…what? That way of seeing?
No fear of losing desire.
To lose desire is to lose your sense of self.
And you don’t call that “evil intent”?
No as I said we formed an image of ourself because we ‘could’ and once that happened the division , conflict, greed, jealousy, cruelty etc followed. But I don’t think that we intended to be what we turned out to be…that WOULD be ‘diabolic’ 
1 Like
I don’t know whether we couldn’t have known how diabolic doing what we could would turn out to be, but that’s how evil begins. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Remember what high hopes were had for the internet and social media? Those hopes were not merely dashed, but blown to smithereens when Trump was elected President.
1 Like
Hi Dev,
Quoting the excerpt which you shared (which I happened to have read last week, and was much affected by it as you seem to be):
“That is the real problem - time that divides, space that separates, the time necessary to get there and the space that is the distance between this and that. This wants to become that, and finds it is not possible because of the distance and the time it takes to cover that distance. ”
In reading this, the rather obvious realisation came to mind – that if the mind keeps creating a distance – between what I think I am and what I want to achieve – that distance can never ever be bridged. How can it be bridged, how can the stream be crossed, when the mind itself keeps creating the distance, creating the stream. And it seems to me it is implicitly creating that divide by every action that it tries to take, psychologically. Is there any divide apart from that effort by the self, that assertion of the self?
I say “the obvious realisation” but one has sympathy with the questioner in this excerpt when he says:
“I understand what you say verbally, but I can’t stop groping and longing, for deep within me I do not believe that there is no way, no discipline, no action that will bring me to the other shore.”
I wouldn’t say it is a matter of not believing, but some deepest conditioning that makes us think this way – contained in the very assumption of existence of the self. The assumption permeates all the psychological movements of thought. This was touched upon, very briefly, in the last Kinfonet Zoom dialogue.
I am the problem, I am not the solution to the problem. Even the use of the word “problem” contains the problem, doesn’t it? And yet it is difficult not to use the world when one looks at the state of the world, and the human mind. Surely there IS a problem, but to think in terms of my solving it is …… the problem?
“what you capture is the sediment of your greed, not reality ”
Clive
2 Likes
I’m wondering if I’m missing what you mean by this?
I thought K was all about being practical. He talked about a radical transformation in the consciousness of mankind that would end humanity’s self-destruction. And suggested reading the book of ourselves in our own ways. This seems practical.
Are they one and the same? My “sense of self” is fraudulent. The self is fraudulent. The actuality of ‘my’ sense of self was never put in
question before. The ‘self’ K says, is a “bundle of memories”. Does thought supply to that bundle, the sensation that there is an actual entity (me) who is responsible for that ‘bundle’? Is what we actually ‘feel’, not a sense of self, but a sense of ‘being’, the feeling that we ARE? And that sense we would share with every living thing in the world?
No ‘I’ anywhere?
If Krishnamurti said it is only silence that can listen to him, understand him, grasp what he has to say, what would your response be?
It is a challenge to a chattering mind. A chattering mind, a becoming mind, a seeking mind, a repeating mind, an occupied mind cannot listen, look and learn.
What is the response of such a chattering mind. It will probably not listen and dismiss it, move on to something else.
But then the silent mind that speaks challenges the chattering mind that there is no division, it is your mental doing that creates division.
Does the chattering mind then just listen and in that silence see that there is no division. Otherwise chattering mind will keep jumping around doing irrelevant things in its chatter.
When does the silent mind appear? Why would it be given more importance than the chattering mind? Doesn’t our chattering feel much more important than silence?
PS. Hello! 
1 Like
Hi Clive
Reading your post revealed something in my mind.
In the flow of life, any attempt to get out of that flow, whether to one shore or the other, is an interruption of that flow.
1 Like
Krishnamurti was “the silent mind that speaks” when he was alive. He spoke to all the minds that couldn’t be silent because silence is death to believing, to choosing, to sustaining the illusion of personal power.
The alternative to living entirely, completely in the moment is presuming to know what is happening and where it is going so as to have an advantage over those who are less presumptuous, less imaginative.
When, if ever, does one see that the desire to know more than one actually knows is the antithesis of silence, emptiness, freedom? Can anything other than silence bring an end to the interminable clamor and insidious suggestion of desire?
1 Like
Practical implies a practice, doesn’t it? An action that can be taken in order to produce an effect. A means to a desired end.
In contrast, Krishnamurti’s teaching asks us to put aside our personal and impersonal solutions and from a place free from all inner and external authority, to find out for ourselves whether it is all possible for there to be an action not born of desire. This is not a solution to the problem but a realization that the problem has no basis in reality. It is self-created, by the separation of thought into thinker and thought. Granted, For those of us in pain, feeling isolated, lonely, in need of connection, that is, for those for whom the sense of self is real, such a proposal is highly impractical. We seek to alleviate our suffering now and quite practically postpone dealing with the root cause to another day.
To reiterate, Krishnamurti sees the problems (of self, of the personal) as not real in the sense that they are created by the very time-based endeavor we embark upon to solve them. To him, it is not a question of tackling the issues of the individual (or of the world for that matter ) head on - though again these do have practical value - but of seeing that those issues will always continue in some form as long we see them as ‘out there’ and thus requiring redress. It is the self itself that is the issue not aspects of itself that need correcting. As long as there is a self there will be distress. And that distress stimulates desire. Desire stimulates thought. Which then creates an incomplete solution. Which then creates distress. And so on. As thus self is sustained along with the whole cycle of sorrow.
Krishnamurti refers to an action not based on an idea as revolution not evolution. It is in that aspect of Krishnamurti’s teaching that my own interest lies. Others might see it differently.
1 Like
This is in response to your last post, Dev, and these two quotes from earlier in the thread.
Yes, I misunderstood. Practice and practical have the same root but no I didn’t understand practical as meaning practice. I didn’t mean practice when using the term practical either. I just mean real world problems of practical significance like people being killed in a war.
My understanding is that the immeasurable which is unknown can’t be talked about because it can’t be seen directly. It is revealed in looking at my self from a perspective that is not self. Desire isn’t here. There’s just watching the self-centered operations.
I’m trying to find some point at which we can meet. I’m wondering if we both see the self does not exist in the realm of the immeasurable, but it does exist in this body which is in time. Or do we not meet here?
I’m also interested in whether any of us meet in understanding how the self and awareness interact? It really helps in my understanding of what K was talking about to look at this. I will explain in the response to the next quote.
This is what came up for me when reading this:
Insight in the moment of everlasting now isn’t accumulation. A “flash of realization” couldn’t possibly be accumulation. But the resulting transformations, as unraveling fragments of the conditioned ego, appear to occur as progressive changes within a thinking human being (self) in time. In time, we do change. In the realm of awareness there’s nothing to change (no self).
A self seems to exist in this brain within this body, and it appears to be an illusory, fabricated, arbitrary, uncentralized collection of fragmented parts. Whatever it is or isn’t, it seems to be important to observe what the sneaky culprit is up to. Is self-knowing an ACTION of “seeing" what myself is doing? if so, that’s not accumulation, that’s process or occurrence or simply awareness. However, “I” learn as a consequence of that seeing, which usually results in the unraveling of a misconception. That type of change seems more like an un-accumulation, an unraveling of some part of the ego. I see that as progression in time, or maybe change is a better word. When K said he didn’t think we “become” I thought he meant it in the awareness sense.
Isn’t clamoring and having “desires, stupid” just something to notice and realize I’m doing? If a harmful thought or action is seen for what it is, the flash of realizing which is insight, by it’s very nature is selfless; is non-accumulative. The flash of realizing transforms one as an unraveling of a held belief for example, and maybe that changes my behavior to be less harmful. If desire or pride come in, that’s just another thing to observe.
Hello Wim,
I take your point. Whether I feel it deeply is another matter.
It is curious, is it not, how the mind is dominated by this wish to become other than it is. Or is it more accurate to say to escape from something it perceives in itself? Is the movement, the impulse, carried over from the practical realm, where it is understandable, or is there some sort of void, emptiness, inadequacy, that the mind is trying to escape from/overcome? Or is it something else entirely?
I am not suggesting that an analysis solves the problem. And of course the movement is not seen AS a problem by the world in general, rather it is seen as a solution.
Very curious
regards
Clive
We know that the conditioned brain on a psychedelic substance can see something for what it actually is rather than for what it means to itself, and the insight can effect a lasting change in its behavior. LSD (before it became a recreational drug) was heralded by therapists because it worked immediately and profoundly, and made talk-therapy seem like a waste of time and money.
And there may be moments when the conditioned brain’s conditioning lapses, has an insight, and undergoes a partial, lasting change. But the total insight that frees the brain from the delusion that it can choose what is true or false, real or imagined, etc., cannot be induced by a substance, a technique, or any attempt to free itself because the delusion is self-induced and self-sustained by the desire for power, agency, that can only be imagined.
“That can only be imagined” …can you put this a little differently?
Does the conditioned brain have the power, the agency, that it believes it has?
This bit is not clear to me. Are you saying that the process of discrimination can be noticed, and dropped? Or are you pointing at something else when you say “immeasurable”?
Also, if I am striving for silence this means that I have not fully grasped what noise is. If silence automatically arises from awareness, some magic is afoot, non?
I like to say : the process (which includes the feeling) of self is an emergent property of (this body & universe).
Yes, the chattering is a form of absorption. It only knows itself and is limited in the sense it is not able to listen, learn as it is unaware of anything outside of chatter. A mind of habit, not learning.
Why is silent mind important? I think no one can show that. Chattering is not interested in that. Chattering mind will not listen to silent mind. A person who believes in the righteousness of war will dismiss the utterances of someone who says peace is natural.
So a person like K who says a peaceful silent mind is a natural mind is a challenge to a person whose life has been engaged in chatter and feels that is his daily natural way of living.
A person who lives in harmony without contradiction is a challenge to a person who believes in division as being real. So a harmonious person will say, ok, you don’t need to do anything, that will be more chatter. Look at yourself. In looking at yourself there is no division as to look you don’t need to do anything. Doing is chatter. So the mind is then silent, looking and without chatter.
1 Like