← Back to Kinfonet

On Division

" To avoid the world is to be worldly. We avoid it in so many ways. Avoidance is resistance to what is. The idealist and the intellectual, the emotional man, the religious man and the man of the world, all resist what is in their own specialized ways. So there is never any radical change or revolution. This resistance or avoidance is cultivated from childhood until we die. This has been the tradition not only in the East but also in the West; it does not belong to the East or the West, for man is not European, Asian or American. The fundamental question is whether it is possible to live a daily life without any resistance, that is, without any defence. Is it possible to be vulnerable, therefore highly sensitive, and yet carry on with our daily occupations?

As this is not done, the inevitable consequence is the separative process which one cultivates through the defence mechanism, and this separative process must inevitably lead to conflict in all relationships. This inner conflict becomes outer conflict leading to national divisions, religious divisions, moral divisions, and so on. Is it possible in society to live a life without conflict, without resistance, without any form of avoidance of what is? The what is is always in the active present. resistance to this living activity comes through past memories of what has been and hope of what might be. The remembrance of the past and the hope of the future is the avoidance of what is. We resist the actual. The actual is anger, or sorrow, or despair, or a moment of joy. Can one look at sorrow without any form of resistance or avoidance, look at it not only with the senses but also without the self-pitying process, and not escape from it; neither condemning it nor accepting it, which are both forms of avoiding what is? What is is sorrow or pain.

Looking is always in the present. If you say,’ I have looked’, and you look at the present with what you have learned from that look and with the memory of that look, then you are really looking with eyes that are clouded by past memories, and so you do not look at all. really to look at this sorrow with which humanity has lived since we began, is to look without time. When there is no resistance, then this sorrow loses it sting. But to accept sorrow, or to worship it, or to explain it away, is never to come into direct contact with it.

The network of escapes which we have cultivated through alcohol, through sex, through the organized beliefs we call religion, through obedience to the State or to some ideology, is in effect resistance to, avoidance of what is, both inwardly and outwardly. All cultivation of the tradition of resistance denies freedom. The remembrance of past action is inaction, for action is a movement in the present, the action which springs from what is, not from the remembrance of what was.""

       Krishnamurti   Chapter 59 - Separation leads to conflict

As long as I am me, there must be division.

If for a moment, there can be freedom from me and what I want, what I know - then for a moment there is silence, there is peace.

PS - There are the emotionally traumatised, there are the neurologically traumatised. There are those whose life is so easy they have to self traumatise in order to realise that trauma exists.

The desire for union is division.

There are those that do not treat me (and my ideas) as I should (in my opinion) be treated. They must be put in their place. If only there was some sort of hierarchy of guruness. (Hopefully no one actually thinks this - but it does often appear that we do)

So ignorance is resistance. Self -ignorance is resistance to "what is " which creates more division and misery .

If by “ignorance” we mean “avoidance”.

However, the “self” does necessarily imply division - and surely this is the case whether or not I am aware of the concept or the fact ? (the concept or fact of “self”)

Mostly we don’t see looking plainly at the world as interesting or worthwhile. To the ordinary person it is an idleness, and fruitless. When it is described poetically, it is taken as romantic, sentimental, fanciful and wishy washy. Perhaps that is a realistic response, since through literature we are left with the choice of accepting or denigrating. In an actual case, with no motive, no desire, you might glimpse the world plainly free from self, free from division, and then realise the untouched right before us. Maybe we are then understanding of this beauty, but leave it to be walks in the park, as it pleases us.

Boredom is definitely a well recognised wall between me and psychological death.

I need sensation.

So we are never in direct contact with sorrow or any other feeling and that is a great tragedy in itself.

Since we can’t truly resolve this fear of what ‘may’ happen, we have to ‘be with’ the fear itself with no resistance?

Do you mean that we are never in “direct contact” because we are always reacting in response to sensation/stimuli?

Why is this a tragedy? Coud it not be argued that reaction is the purpose of sensation?

Never heard of the “purpose of sensation” . Sensations are signals that something is wrong like the sensations in your teeth.

So, despite not recognising an expression, would you not agree that you are describing what the expression points to?

Despite the theory that the super power of humans is their ability to communicate, our attempts at dialogue can get ever so laborious.

I suppose this indicates that it is our knowledge that divides us - despite the fact that we seem to be saying the same thing. Or is it our pride? Maybe knowledge and pride are linked?

PS - I admit that I may be the first human to say “purpose of sensation”, if so, mea culpa. I hear that many of the things we say have never been said before - which might mean that we are able to understand stuff that we have never heard before (amazing skills!)

PPS - Sorrow, fear, etc are the psychological sensations (aka emotions) which signal that something is wrong - which, for the self, implies a call to action.

We are never in “direct contact” with our feelings due to the exigent reaction (fight, flight, protection etc) those feelings provoke?
Were those feelings put in place (via evolution) because they served some useful purpose? Are we saying that they no longer serve their purpose? Why should we stay in contact with our feelings, rather than act instinctively?

I think of existence, as my existence. Watching the changing light in my room as the sun sets, I see it is not my light, not my planet, it is a human existence. There all these qualities of life which are not mine alone or independently. What I see, not as mine, but as human, is a movement. The movement of the sun, the planet, light, air, gravity, all of that. Anyone, anywhere, also sees these qualities of a life, human, in circumstances good or bad. Not being in touch with this movement is the terror of not being human. My, his/her existence, is terror.

What I hear you saying is that human perception/interpretation is the movement of fear.

There must be the perception of division (between me/not me) for there to be fear.
Division is a necessary component of our survival mechanism.

So action can only be in the present. The action of thought is inaction.

Seeing, observation, of thought in movement is action.

Observation with a motive is one thing and choice less awareness is another.

1 Like

Sitting somewhere and talking together with someone, why must there be this perception of division, why is it necessary, what do I have to survive? This is all too terrible way to live.

1 Like

Yes thought has to be very honest to discern the difference. Whether it is suppression masquerading as awareness or just awareness of its own movement.

To what extent can thought be honest? Is thought, by its nature, a trickster, not to be trusted? Or honest by nature and only dishonest because something’s gone wrong (un-natural) with it?