Reading krishnamurti is different than reading someone online. Online reading is a form of entertainment, not to be taken seriously. One doesn’t use online chatting as a mirror but when reading K one uses his words as a mirror. That is the difference when reading K.
Anyone you’re relating to is a mirror. They reflect your conditioned response.
Nobody prevents you.
I don’t know what you mean by this.
You said, “One doesn’t use online chatting as a mirror”, but in fact, anyone you converse with or deal with reflects your conditioned response, whether you’re “using” the occasion or not.
Other people’s responses have nothing to do with me, it doesn’t" reflect "me, it reflects themselves.
What do you think ‘helps’ more in seeing one’s own arrogance, say, ‘chatting’ on line or reading K? Doesn’t reading K bolster, enhance one’s ego?
Online at least our arrogance say, can be ‘reflected’ back to us and we can observe our reaction to that reflection: denial, dismissal, shame, anger, etc. That is not a possibility when reading K as I see it.
Self knowledge comes through relationship.
3 Likes
Why do you believe that?
Dan,
Actually, the danger is more the issue of reading posts by those who are attached to the idea of dependence on others (the group mind) and subsequent belief therein. Two heavily conditioning persons cannot learn anything from each other and inevitably end up bolstering each other’s egos.
Considering that relationship with “the other” is that which implies that one feels that one is related deeply in one’s blood, in one’s bones, in one’s heart and mind, and has nothing to do with finding and forming any so-called relationships with an “other” who has the same conditioning and therefore one feels more comfortable in chatting with such a person, because such a false idea of relationship doesn’t threaten their own deeply ingrained personal conditioning.
Knowing about one’s self is quite different from actually seeing the conditioning and hence understanding that conditioning, and completely dissolving that conditioning. A person can most easily know or even have known (for example, that they are ambitious) without the ending of that trait. A person can know or discover that they have some character defects without ending such traits. People can realize that for example, that they are analytical, etc. without ending such trait. And without the ending of such traits, they continue on with as K talked about just a modified continuity.
Anyone, even Trump and Boris, can and do know they are liars, without having to be told. It has never seemed to have stopped either of them from continuing to behave in that way. Most people can know they depend on others and are completely oblivious to the fact that they continue to be attached. So one wonders, is the idea of a modified continuity the goal?
- “Ordinarily we know only the activity of desire, which is the activity of the mind identified as the ‘me’. That ‘me’ is very petty, very small, narrow, shallow; though it may extend widely through identification, it is still very shallow, and therefore it can never find that which is real. A petty mind seeking god will find a god which is also petty. A superficial mind, however much it may discipline itself and assert that it must love, be compassionate, kind, gentle, will still be superficial.”
K: Ojai, 8th Public Talk, 12th July 1953
Some people may discover and/or know they have a petty mind, but that doesn’t seem to stop their pettiness - on the contrary.
- “A petty mind is always petty; it cannot be made rich, abundant. Though such a mind may adorn itself or seek to acquire virtue, it remains what it is, a petty, shallow thing, and through so-called growth, experience, it can only be enriched in its own pettiness. An ugly thing cannot be made beautiful. The god of a petty mind is a petty god. A shallow mind does not become fathomless by adorning itself with knowledge and clever phrases, by quoting words of wisdom, or by decorating its outward appearance. Adornments, whether inward or outward, do not make a fathomless mind; and it is this fathomlessness of the mind that gives beauty, not the jewel or the acquired virtue. For beauty to come into being, the mind must be choicelessly aware of its own pettiness; there must be an awareness in which comparison has wholly ceased.”
K: Commentaries on Living, Series I, Chapter 53, ‘Spontaneity’
Insofar as “comparative thinking” goes, K clearly understood what that was:
- “K: Do please listen to what you are saying. Do I learn through comparison?”
…
“K: No, no, madam – that doesn’t mean anything. Sorry, forgive me if I contradict you. Do I learn anything by comparing or do I only learn by looking at the fact and enquiring about that fact; not by comparing that fact with another fact? I have a Chinese vase, and a Persian vase. By looking at the Chinese vase I learn all about it. But if I begin to compare the two, I am learning about something else, not about the fact of the Chinese vase.”
K: The Brockwood Park Talks & Discussions 1969, 2nd Public Dialogue, 11th September 1969
So knowing that one indulges in comparative thinking has no effect whatsoever on continuing to indulge with such behaviour.
1 Like
The petty mind finds in K something that it thinks will enhance it. It may or may not go into it deeply. But if it does it realizes that it has taken a ‘poison’.
Dan,
Ah, now, I see what you are meaning when you speak of enhancing the ego (adornment). Okay, gotcha. Of course, once a petty mind realizes it is petty, there is always the possibility of “breaking up” (K) the pettiness.
There is still the issue of dependence, Dan. It took Charley over a year (in the very early 1990s) to realize that dependence/attachment/reliance on others (in real time) is also a form of accepting or looking to others as a possible “authority”, that the “other” can be a comfortable source that would or could “help” one on one’s journey within… before dropping that entirely. This was not easy to do at all, btw. It was really difficult to understand. As K said, beware (wary) of someone who offers you psychological comfort.
1 Like
That’s what I meant by ‘poison’, the petty mind looks to him as the possible way to the ultimate psychological comfort: freedom. But it’s a ‘petty’ freedom. He turns the whole thing upside down. And leaves us to find the way through it or not.
1 Like
Dependence cont’d,
Human beings are such that we depend physically on our parents/guardians before we can function in this world alone for a long time. We are well aware that there are other species on this planet that push their offspring out fairly early. But physically, it takes years and years for a human being to develop into an adult. The problem then develops into - at one point, does one realize that this dependence translate or migrate into the psychological? As one said, it was difficult to realize and even be aware that it was a problem… and it was a really difficult thing to understand.
Dan,
Yes, indeed, re: relationships which you mentioned above …but you have remained alert to any and all reactions you might have re: exchanges in here. I already noticed that in you and how it shows in the kind of posts you make, how some of your posts have changed, reflecting how some of “you” has changed, since one joined this site… lol, please don’t let such a comment go to your head lol
re: poison
Yes, indeed, sort of “toxic”… *G
K told a great little story which clearly illustrated this danger:
The Two Robbers
- “4th Question: Please explain what you mean by saying that if one perceives truth and doesn’t act, it acts as poison.
“K: Do you need an explanation for that? All right? I have heard the truth that thought is limited. That’s the truth, that’s not an invention, that’s not an exotic idea, something conceived by some idiot or other; it’s a fact. And I listen to the fact, the truth of it. And I carry on my daily life. What takes place? I have realized something to be true and I am acting quite the opposite to that. What happens? Conflict increases more and more and more. It is much better not to hear the truth, then you can carry on in the old way. But the moment you hear something to be extraordinarily beautiful, and that beauty not just a mere description but the actuality of that beauty, when you do something ugly, and keep on repeating doing the ugly thing, obviously it is a poison. It not only affects you physically, inwardly, and also it affects a great deal the brain that has heard something to be true and does the contrary. Therefore it’s much better not to hear if you want to carry on in your old way.
“There is a very good story of two robbers. And they have been robbing, and their father has been praising god for his kindness, for their benefit – you understand, thieves have also gods, not only the rich people. So, one day they have been robbing somebody or other, and they are coming back. In the square, there is a man giving a sermon, and he is saying, “You must never steal, you must never hurt another, be kind”. The other brother closes his ears, he doesn’t want to hear, and the other brother hears it. And for the rest of his life he is in pain.
“I think this is a fact, really a great fact, and we don’t seem to realize it; that when something enormously beautiful, you see, you are sensitive enough to see that beauty, and you do something ugly, it really tortures you, if you are sensitive. And that’s why truth is such a dangerous thing.”
J. Krishnamurti in Ojai, 1st Public Question and Answer Meeting, 22nd May 1984, ‘Are You an Individual?’
1 Like
They don’t think of themselves as liars when they attract an audience that believes and promotes their lies. They’re just being pragmatic. They’ll say anything to get what they want, and believers are eager to believe anything that tickles their fancy or raises their blood pressure.
They’re ‘premier ‘ exploiters and if I also exploit others, I’m worse than them. Because I know better.
I believe I’m worse because I believe know better. It’s a comparison that flatters me for being more knowing, and cautions me against misbehavior…
No I don’t think so. I simply see that it’s wrong to exploit another for one’s gain. I’m not saying that I won’t do it. But I will suffer if I do because as I see it, it’s wrong, not morally just stupidly.
It isn’t always wrong. In fact, tt’s a win-win situation when someone wants to be utilized because the experience is edifying, and therefore useful. Mutual exploitation is a symbiotic relationship.
Like Bondage, go for it!
Not what I had in mind.
Take formal education, for instance. When students pay teachers for instruction that qualifies them to get jobs that pay for their needs, teachers are exploiting students no more than students are exploiting teachers.