Are you speaking for yourself or for “people”?
When I’m more invested in having change “take place” than in finding out what actually is right now, nothing has changed or will change.
Change in the future is an aspiration, a pipe-dream, and it wastes time and energy better spent finding out what actually is at this moment.
‘Paying’ attention or not paying attention are opposite states of the self. One is directed awareness, the other, not paying attention is distraction. This is not the ‘attention’ he is speaking of. It is in his words, a “different dimension of awareness “…that is present even when we are not?
I say Logik and you say logic,
I say Selbst and you say self
Logik, logic, Selbst, self
Let’s call the whole thing off. (Please! Basta! End of subthread! RIP!)
I think this is what he meant in ‘The Urgency of Change’: “Change is the denial of change.”
What do you exactly mean by “speaking behalf of K”? Are you not as confused as anybody else in here?
That statement in itself makes no sense. What’s the context?
Dear James, I understand you very well. And I agree for sure that if we are serious there is nothing stopping us from experimenting with awareness. But for me it does not simply stop there. If we are serious and go into it and percieve that there is no difference beteween us and the world inwardly we are not simply remaining with ourselves. We realize that change in general is necessary and we see that it does not happen. Quite naturally to me then comes the question what is preventing this change. This needs continuous stopping and looking. But is this just to satisfy oneself, relieve oneself? I have the feeling that would correspond to your saying, are we making a problem out of it? Or is this question of awareness a question of us all, all humans and not a personal thing, a thing created by the self.
Dear Inquiry, I am not intending a change following an imagination. If you what I have written I tried to make it clear what I mean. The majority of us humans realizes that there is climate change and that this needs a change of our behaviour because if we go on we will cause a lot of death, poverty etc. But this change is not happening. What I tried to convey is: Do we see a sitution as it is and that it requires immediate change? Not change according to an idea, but change.
When we talk about attention or any other word we then first should clarify what we mean. And not what K means. What do we mean. If attention is part of the self then it is still limited and cannot percieve the actual situation. So we should first make clear what are we exploring? A different dimension etc seems to me first of all speculation.
This is a really interesting thread. I’ve only reached comment 77 above and must say that this expresses how I feel also. Any observation of my reaction to an observation, whether it be like, dislike or whatever, seems to be some sort of key to opening the door to seeing things as they really are.
I will continue to read the messages on this thread as we jointly take the ferry across this long, deep loch. We may discover selflessnessie at some point.
I thought you said that my English was bad, Examiner?
I said “Nobody” speaks on behalf of K. “Nobody” means “nobody”: i.e. none of us here, including yourself, including myself, speaks on behalf of K. Is that clear?
In essentials, I am surely no more, and no less, confused than anyone else here.
Why? Isn’t it by being aware of ourselves and others that we begin to see - not theoretically but actually - that there is no difference fundamentally between ourselves and others (between the inner and the outer, between ourselves and the world)?
In any case, there are other threads to go into the questions you are asking here. Personally I just want to stay with this thread of effective action, effective doing at the level of awareness for the time being, because this is not something that we (or rather I) generally do on other threads. I hope that’s ok with you Erik.
I understand. Could you then lay down again what you mean with effective action and doing? I still think we cannot separate it from the world. To me it is not me and the world. It is one movement. But I would like to go into that what you intended. For that I would appreciate if you could make your question clear again.
I am at work right now Erik, so I don’t have time to give you a proper reply. But if I can point you towards the OP (the first post on the thread), as well as posts 5 and 8 (in the replies), they should give you a general sense of where my question is coming from and what it concerns.
Real change is not the moving away (change) from one’s reaction but denying that movement and staying with ‘what is’
We have no bad English here ,you intentionally start a blog with grammatically wrong sentences like “dead k society” and so on for attention. I say that shows lack of seriousness.
I see you have edited your post but the gist seems to be, you are questioning the use of the word “practical” in reference to Krishnamurti’s teachings. You do have a point.
Anyone, (which means almost everyone), if explicitly or implicitly, uses the word “practical” in reference to K’s teachings, demonstrates one of there things, or possibility all three. 1- A complete lack in understanding basic K teachings. 2- Usage of oxymorons 3- A tendency to sensationalize.
The above three will indicate a far more serious and alarming symptom and that is the weaponization of K’s words, which in turn will indicate a continuity of the same pettiness, deception, deficiencies in character, that were there before the person found K. It will indicate no real change in behavior has happened. But that’s easy to tell, isn’t it?
The reason one cannot use the word “practical” in reference to K’s teachings is because it is antithetical to K’s basic/foundational take on measurements form the center.
Have we ever asked ourselves what impact all the things we consider practical had in our life? There are unnumerable practical methods which claims to solve all our problems, do they really function? Look carefully at your life, at yourself, which real improvements have you got? And yet we still clings to “something pratical”. That is our paradox, which is well depicted in a joke I read some time ago: a man sees another man kneeling down on the pavement in the street at night time, obviously looking for something. “Have you lost something?” He asks the man. “Yes”, the other fellow replies, " a pair of keys". “Did you lose them here?” No, I lost them over there, but it’s dark there, while here the street lamp makes it easier to see."
We love the practical things, the practical methods, because somehow they make things easy. But human life involves a number of problems which cannot be approached the way we are used to. Awareness is not something “practical”, it’s not our comfort zone. But without awareness we cannot solve the problems of desire, of fear, of conflicts, of death.
When we are looking for something practical we are still prisoners of the field which created those problems while the solution lies outside that field.
We should not ask whether something is practical or easy to do, but only if it’s worth doing and if it makes sense to us.
K was all about awareness . One can not practice awareness. One is either aware or one is unaware.