The question (requiring contemplation) at # 39 , like many other question by this one wasn’t seeking a quick run of the mill answer or any amateurish cleverness, and certainly not any answer that isn’t even able to identify what’s being asked. A prerequisite for a dialogue is sort of a relationship, going slow but steady.
Hi again United78,
As far as I understand, Krishnamurti puts the discrepancy between “complete action” and “incomplete action” down to the intervention of thought in the time between a situation which provokes a response and the response itself. When thought intervenes, past conditioning determines the response whereas if the response is immediate, thought is not involved and so neither is conditioning. Does this suggest that when we act spontaneously or instinctively, our actions are complete and “right”?
Hello Sean, @Sean
The question was, why is it when faced with physical danger such as a possibility of being hit by a car or bit by a cobra our responses are complete, but in the context of the issues such as the ones being discussed here ( psychological conflict such as anger, greed etc.) the responses are incomplete?
I understand that K said this is because thought, and so past conditioning, is not involved here.
I think K was saying that the involvement of thought leads to confused, incomplete action here.
I’m not sure if we’re talking at cross purposes here United78.
It is good to refer to K occasionally but K would want us to think/ponder/inquire for ourselves, so putting aside what K said/or what k meant, per his insistence, we are looking at our own lives and not K’s life.
Quoting K you mentioned a complete response is immediate, without the interval of time. Without quoting K this one says a complete response is also an adequate response commensurate to the challenge. One won’t be surprised if upon digging this will also match K’s words.
Now, a question was asked , why is it when faced with physical danger such as a possibility of being hit by a car or bit by a cobra our responses are complete, but in the context of the issues such as the ones being discussed here ( psychological conflict such as anger, greed etc.) the responses are incomplete?
What is the difference between the two scenarios above? In one there is a perception of immediate danger/threat, in the other there isn’t. Isn’t it so?
Could you give an example of this?
There was a standing question from me to you, Sean, which obviously needed an answer if we are inquiring together.
I am going to make an one time exception and answer your question (which is irrelevant at this time and could have been taken up later), giving you the benefit on the doubt of any attempts of detraction, evasion, or measurement. This one doesn’t partake in the usual games, as perhaps can be seen/felt…
Same example can be used, a car is coming at you erratically, you immediately try to get out of it’s way. Adequate and commensurate response.
Hello again United78,
To be honest, I found your last reply strange. I asked you to give an example as I was trying to understand what exactly you were saying. You seemed to find this inappropriate. I have no idea why.
Anyway, to come back to your question - yes, there is a clear sense of danger when seeing a car drive erraticaly towards you. This provokes a response which is “complete” in the sense that evasive action is taken without thinking.
In a situation where there is no immediate danger - let’s say when you are sitting talking to a friend - the response will very probably be different. The fact that there is no immediate danger will give rise to a very different kind of response.
First I apologize for one part in my previous response and that is “which is irrelevant at this time”, the rest I stand by. The reason for apologizing is a wrong choice of words, it may seem irrelevant to me but it may be unfair to expect another will see it as i do. I realized the mistake but by that time it was perhaps too late. Having witnessing the kind of exchanges that goes on which includes the things mentioned earlier( as well as in our last exchange where I had highlighted something and had to end it) I thought it necessary to pass that disclaimer. Please take it simply as an attempt to make clear where one stands, which is what it really was. It will be helpful in any future exchanges.
Alright, so we agree when there is a clear sense ( i had used the word perception insetad of sense, at # 44) of danger the response is immediate and complete, but in an absence of such a sense the response is incomplete.
Now, let’s go back and read the context of this thread and the issues you had presented in the beginning. Has the above insight resolved the issues/questions? The question being, why isn’t there complete action when we see our anger, greed, envy, violence? Why isn’t there complete freedom from these ‘undesirables’?
No. Not all spontaneous and instinctive response is appropriate or even perceptive.
In the book ‘Life Ahead’ (ed. 1964) Krishnamurti answers questions put forward by students. One of these questions was: ‘Is truth relative or absolute?’ to which Krishnamurti answered: ’ (…) Truth is to be discovered and understood in every action, in every thought, in every feeling, however trivial or transient ; it is to be observed at each moment of every day; it is to be listened to in what the husband and the wife say, in what the gardener says, in what your friends say, and in the process of your own thinking. Your thinking may be false, it may be conditioned. limited; and to discover that your thinking is conditioned, limited, is truth. That very discovery sets your mind free from limitation. (…) When you realize the significance of this, you will find out what an extraordinary thing truth is. Truth is timeless, but the moment you capture it - as when you say «I have found truth, it is mine» - it is no longer truth. So, whether truth is absolute or timeless depends on the mind’. Further on, on understanding, Krishnamurti makes it clear that understanding is not remembering and repeating what you have found in books or others told you about and it is not in the future, one must understand directly and clearly for it to be understanding with no problems attached to it, otherwise it will be destructive. In the sequence of the questions, a student asks if understanding is the same in all persons and of course Krishnamurti tells him that it all depends on ‘the barriers’. But another aspect tackled on the theme of this thread is action and also in this book ‘Life Ahead’ somehow we can find the answer when Krishnamurti approached what we all look for in life, that is, peace. At a certain point he says: ‘peace is not the outcome of reason; and yet, as you will see if you observe them, the organised religions are caught up in this pursuit of peace through the mind. Real peace is as creative and as pure as war is destructive; and to find that peace, one must understand beauty. (…) Peace is of the heart, not of the mind. To know peace you have to find out what beauty is. The way you talk, the words you use… Beauty cannot be defined, it cannot be explained in words. It can be understood only when the mind is very quiet.’ (…) ’ Peace is not something petty, created by the mind; it is enormously great, infinitely extensive, and it can be understood only when the heart is full.’
1 Like
…and the mind is empty
Ok, thanks for this clarification United78. I welcome any attempt at making clear where one stands.
Yes, I think we can agree on thisin a general sense. This is what K points out in the video when he talks about the cobra.
Actually, early on in the thread I brought up seeing anger as it arises as a possible example of seeing - understanding - immediate action. I would say that there is complete action when we see our anger clearly and understand it. Of course, you might say that this is fantasy, impossible etc. I would say that the problem is that we generally live in the world of our thoughts and clear perceptions are fleeting, although not absent altogether. This brings me back to the quote that I posted in the first message on this thread.
I agree with you here Inquiry. Are all conditioned responses inappropriate? Is it possible to reflect, consider, then take appropriate action?
Inquiry,
When you add ‘… and an empty mind’, you seem to oppose ‘full heart’ to ‘empty mind’. What Krishnamurti says is that peace is not of the mind, it is of the heart, so I think it is important just to stay with ‘the heart’ (implying beauty and love altogether), meaning we can simply see with the heart, which reminds me of some intimation Krishnamurti shared somewhere in which he states ’ when you hear with your heart, the world is filled with it and your eyes see clearly’.
This one inquired along with you into our own lives without any quoting, theorizing, shoddy or speculative ideas. The inquiry did not go into ought’s, could’s, or should’s but focused on ‘what is’.
Doing so one had an insight, fresh, original, not second hand; i.e., a complete action (without an interval of time) is also an adequate and commensurate response to a challenge which takes place when one has a perception/clear sense of danger. Minus a clear sense of danger there isn’t going to be a complete action as the factors needed for complete action are absent.
The translation of this insight is thus: There isn’t going to be a complete action in regards to violence, anger etc. because we do not have a clear sense of danger in regards to them. If we do not see them as being dangerous to our existence, similar to how we see a speeding car, there is never going to be a complete action.
I think this concludes the present inquiry and if there isn’t anything else then i will leave you to the trying of this insight.
Maybe a good idea to stop here. I’m glad you had an insight though.
I’m sorry you didn’t…well perhaps keep trying.
You never did say why you thought you’d never been able to have any kind of “complete action”. That could have been interesting. Or maybe you think your actions are “complete” but everybody else’s actions are “incomplete”?