Memory

Kinfonet Discussion
81

James,

ah, thanks for clarifying…(nods), yes, I understand. Some people suggest being “open-minded” as a catch-all phrase re: new ideas, theories, etc., even as K suggested in his early talks (1933-), but later warned against. Now, this is an interesting subject, as it brings in the whole issue of the difference between what it means as to “how to think” instead of being told “what to think”.

Please understand, that earlier, pre-K, one did not verbalize what one thought(s), or one’s opinions. Perhaps, it was partly due to a lack of confidence (and to be precise, not self-confidence), and secondly, it was mainly due to one’s lack of understanding on issues, on various subjects, on life. And this brings up (discovery, here, *G) how thought itself is forever reaching to have a complete intellectual understanding on issues, on life - something which one wonders at the necessity of talking about (truth), considering how many expend so much effort and energy expounding on trying to understand what K meant by x, y and z by using thought, as if thought can understand truth…

So, when much younger, one would sit and listen during suppers with friends to what they said, even to the point of being criticized at one’s silence. The changes due to one’s work on oneself have completely changed Charley. One now has something to say, and can verbalize clearly. One doesn’t understand how anyone who pretends to have done serious work on their self, how such a person can sit in “contentless” silence and pretend to have emptied the content of their consciousness - and then one reflects: ah, they are lying. The more one exercises awareness and attention, the more there is understanding and clarity, therefore, having something to say about just about everything - which is a delight, and much fun. So, with certain people, one can sense that something is “off” with anyone who says they have no self - and that word “off” to Charley means that they still have yet to empty the content of their consciousness or are even in the process of emptying a significant part of themselves, to the extent that they are able to speak up, or even honor their word (say what they mean and mean what they say - integrity).

re: music, not a singer, but occasionally listen to music, that which has passion alone.

As regards understanding what K meant by “how to think”… it is crucial to understand that work on oneself results in the capacity to be able to think for oneself, instead of allowing oneself to be influenced and or impressed by what others say or think. Which brings up the more interesting subject of what it means to be a light to oneself.

Condolences to all UK peeps, re: Boris… btw (lol) Pinocchio eh?

82

For some reason I missed your comment.

Yes, I share your feeling that there is something not quite right about the neo-advaita approach. But this is not to say that there aren’t some exceptions.

For instance, although I haven’t studied him much, the little that I’ve seen and read of Jean Klein - a musicologist and physician from France who became a “spiritual teacher” - inclines me to believe that he was a genuinely reflective person who had some insight. He doesn’t come across as authoritarian or having the pretensions of other so-called “spiritual teachers”, and seems to have been a rational, sensitive person with a modern outlook.

Another exception - again from the little I’ve read of him - is the 20th century teacher Nisargadatta Maharaj. Nisargadatta was a person very much of his time and place, and so one forgives him for indulging some of the superstitions of his milieu - but he comes across as incredibly frank, obstinate, perspicacious, unpretentious, and capable of revelatory wise aphorisms (although I don’t know how much this is due to the input of his translators, because Maharaj never spoke a word in English).

The commonality between both of these figures is the significance they accord to simple present awareness (which is sometimes conjugated in that subculture as being aware of the ‘I am’ in each moment - but which can in fact be stripped of this singular first-person pronoun without losing any of its actual meaning: so the continued use of the first-person ‘I’ seems to be an unnecessary category error in this regard).

It would be interesting for this general approach to engage in dialogue with what one might call the more Buddhist perspective - which emphases the significance of compassion, the feeling for the suffering of others, the world etc (the bodhisattva attitude, as it were), and this is probably why it never really caught on with me.

83

Apologies for not replying sooner - yesterday was a busy day for me, and I had no time.

Yes, the UK is living through a real moment of cultural disgrace at the present (what with Brexit first and now Johnson’s government). But the fact that Johnson is no longer universally popular with conservative voters is cause for some slight hope…

Yes, I think this is right. It is not what we think which is important, but how we think: that is to say, it matters that we are able to be aware of our assumptions, our conditioning, our past influences (that have conditioned us to think and feel a certain way) - and to be flexible enough to pause, “bracket”, or even completely drop those assumptions (as they are occurring), so that they do not interfere in the ‘next’ moment of inquiry.

So, as you say,

because one is in fact, then, always looking at the thing being ‘thought about’ or inquired into, afresh.

This is not to say, of course, that this is always or generally how it is for me. Speaking personally, I usually begin any conversation or inquiry with whatever assumptions and prejudices are piled up at the back of my mind (which may take the form of reactions, emotional responses, images, and so on)… But then, if and once a genuine inquiry has begun, those same prejudices and assumptions (with their reactions) become interesting objects of attention in their own right, and it then becomes possible to drop them, or see through them, so that the investigation becomes transparent to whatever intelligence the mind presently has. - At which point, as you say, everything becomes interesting!

Yes - this would of course require a whole inquiry of its own to unpack. But just speaking quickly here, it would surely imply having a mind that is uninfluenced, unconditioned by what other people have said; and so utterly new and fresh. In other words, free.

84

I get the impression (as an outsider looking in) that there is some hope of grasping and holding on to the non-dual consciousness in Advaita. Whereas in Zen there is more the sense of transcending any need for what is not.

85

That’s not the teaching, but it’s what sometimes gets learned. It’s a pretty universal tendency in religions, eh? The majority of followers use the teachings to bolster their comfort and security, their ‘known.’ I see it quite clearly in myself. You?

86

Teachings are a starting point for dialogue - they are a mirror to our understanding of them - and the hope is that by expressing our beliefs we can discover the batshit. I would hope that I am not holding on to any dogma as a comforter or method.

87

That’s a vain hope. Dogmas are man’s best friends. The “No Dogmas Allowed” sign on my brain is my “comforter”.

If you were not holding on to what you believe to be true and false, you’d be free of you.

88

Pun of the day! Well done. :slight_smile:

89

Ha, ha. My dogma ate my Krishnamurti Reader.