Psychological security

Kinfonet Discussion
#1

We, Humanity, need physical security. To live, we need the security of food, cloth, shelter and some basic needs. So we seek them by earning for our life. But why we run for a security which is created in ‘psych’? Shall we inquire about this?

We can clearly see that, we couldn’t see the beauty of ‘what-is’ and so we create a psychological security. Because the ‘what-is’ always changing (not permanent) and so we couldn’t understand it and feel it’s beauty. We fear of this ever-changing reality (even after we become millionaire, we fear what if this name/money gets lost/stolen). And through this ‘psychological security’, we believe that, something in this physical world can bring us permanent blissful state, so we run for some materials/people, but we get bored of it, we couldn’t get the permanent bliss and it’s a fact. That’s why K says, there is no psychological security at all. If we pay attention to it, whenever there a desire arises, we can be choice-lessly aware of it, and so the desire ends. But is it really happening that way?. Not at all. Even if we aware (there is no such security), the mind keeps on dragging us to those instant pleasures.

Okay, now let’s go into an interesting thing. Every time, there is a need for psychological security within us, and we focus it on some physical materials/people. Why we seek physically is, it is an attainable thing.

So, what if we seek psychological security in the unattainable one? Here the unattainable thing is nothing but what K says as ‘love’. K says ‘love’ is not an attainable thing and if we say we love everything, it is not actually love.

(I’m not speaking about when there is sufferings, it is even after when we see this suffering and end it, a desire/thought/lust keeps on arising, so here I speak only after we got rid of sufferings)

K says there is no psychological security in physical activity/material/person/universe, but what if there is “psychological security psychologically”?. I don’t know whether K tried this, but whenever thought as a desire comes, to grab a material/people for psychological security, what if we turn those desire to the ‘unattainable’ one?. I tried it first, the experience is unimaginable, and I tried it many times when lust/desire/thought arises, I felt a beauty in it, and it is not pleasure and there is no struggle in those - as nothing can be attained. There is no suffering at all, as nothing is attained to be lost.

We don’t know what is acting behind the nature, who makes this Big Bang or Big bounce, why universe keeps on expanding, why life comes and goes, why mountains,sees,trees look beautiful, we don’t know whether only our thoughts makes this happen, we don’t know we are really living in a simulation and if we are - we don’t know we ourselves created this universe/water/fire/land/air, we don’t know who made this air come in and go out, we don’t know how this organs are created, we don’t know how these sperm and egg carry every bodily cells and knowledge, we don’t know why our body is created as a decaying thing - but one thing is sure, if there is one behind this nature (here ‘one’ may be ‘eternal consciousness’ or may be gross/subtle) - then that ‘one’ is something beyond imagination and that ‘one’s beauty is everlasting and non-perishable. (Here ‘we’ includes every living being)

Now, here is another interesting thing, is this running for the ‘love’, the ‘unattainable’ one - is the actual devotion?. K had inquired within and found there is no devotion at all. But before accepting that “there is no other way or there is no devotion at all” - we should try it on our own like K did. If not, we may blindly accept what he said without any inquiry. We don’t know whether he tried all ways. We don’t know whether he tried everything seriously and wholeheartedly. So, we have to do it on our own seriously and only then we can see it as it is. Or else we may caught in a belief that “there is no devotion or way at all”.

In religious sects, they/we pray ‘I need this/that, I need to get out of this pain/sufferings/circus’, but do they/we meditate/pray that “I need you, could you take me with you, can I serve and remember you for my whole life, will you merge within me, or can I always be merged within you”.
Does this makes sense or it looks non-sense?

#2

If one questions something, will he question only because of a belief but not to find out the truth?. If he inquires because of belief, then if someone questions his inquiry - he will fight the person who questions. Right?

E.g. - If you ask a Hindu, “does ‘god’ resides in this black stone?”, he will say “yes” and if you ask “how you know?”, he will fight with you by saying “you are an anti-Hindu” - then we can easily see that, he is caught in belief. But when you pose this question to a person, who is in a urge to find out the truth, he will say, “I don’t know whether he is really in that stone but let’s inquire and find out without believing that ‘he’s not in this stone too’”. Right?

Likewise, if a person questions about the teachings and K’s words and personal life, a person who believes in K, fights by saying that, “no he is not”. But a person who carries dialogues and seriously inquires to see the truth, he will say, “I don’t know - the teachings and K’s life/words like ‘Truth is a pathless land’ - is true/fact/wrong - but let’s find it out together by inquiring every path - neither believing ‘K is right/wrong’ nor believing ‘this is the path’”. Right?

Okay. Let’s continue to inquire. In today’s excerpt, Krishnamurti says,

Man has always sought something beyond the physical existence. He has always searched, asked, suffered, tortured himself, to find out if there is something which is not of time, which is not of thought, which is not belief or faith. To find that out one must be absolutely free, for if you are anchored to a particular form of belief, that very belief will prevent investigation into what is eternal - if there is such a thing as eternity which is beyond all time, beyond all measure. So one must be free - if one is serious in the enquiry into what religion is - one must be free of all the things that thought has invented about that which is considered religious. That is, all the things that Hinduism, for example, has invented, with its superstitions, with its beliefs, with its images, and its ancient literature such as the Upanishads - one must he completely free of all that. If one is attached to all that then it is impossible, naturally, to discover that which is original. You understand the problem? If my mind, my brain is conditioned by Hindu superstitions, beliefs, dogmas and idolatry, with all the ancient tradition, then it is anchored to that and cannot move, it is not free.

Now, K says one must be free to inquire the truth. Yes, if one seriously wants to find out, then one must be free. There is no doubt in it.

But, does K was free? - let’s inquire about this. K says, Religions and it’s practices, Upanishads, etc… are thought inventions. How does K come into this statement. Does he seriously practiced every paths in every religions?. Upto our knowledge, we can see - he had not gone through everything. He had practiced something - but after that, he may have come to a conclusion that, ‘every religion/scriptures poses the same practices - so there is no use in reading those’. I don’t know it is true, but he may have. In what he practiced too, there may not be right guru to explain the way. Here too I don’t know, but there is a possibility.

So, if one must be free - does K was really free?. In my view, he may not be free, because of creating a belief that, ‘every religion is invention of thoughts’. If he was free, he might have addressed to people that “I don’t know - whether every religion is invention of thoughts - but let’s find it out together and see what really it is”. Right?

What is your view about these questions (not statements/truth/facts) ?

#3

Considering what someone says, reviewing the ideas, is in the field of thought. Even if I say I am serious, I am listening, and I am questioning, whether I say I know or don’t know, I still will find I am the self center, and this is conditioned mind. Then there is what is called insight, and it is different. Insight is of a different nature, not of the self center. What can be said of the insight, it is not belief. A word is a label. A belief implies the believer.

#4

Absolutely Peter.

If you say K had insight, then in religions,upanishads,etc… might be ‘insights’ and not ‘inventions of thoughts or beliefs’. Right?

If we say religions,etc… are inventions of thoughts, then K’s ‘truth is a pathless land’ might be ‘invention of thoughts’ right?

We can’t stand one answer for K and another answer for religions. Right?. If we stand so, we are creating a belief that K is ‘right’ and making him an ‘authority/guru’ and neglecting every religions. Right?

#5

Take gender, sex, for example. Is anyone individual, male or female, the offender? Isn’t sex a part of the whole civilized offense for all of us? We have all been trying to come to terms with it, each century, each country, each religion, having different, unsuccessful, responses. We might ask, why doesn’t the individual see the offensive nature of civilization? And we can answer, because of psychological security. So what? This is just going around in circles, splitting it up into issues, and not actually thinking about the insight into the offence.

#6

The content says something, but is we who give it a greater role to play in an organised religion.

#7

What does religion does with civilisations, Peter?

It is the response of religious people and not because of religion. Isn’t it?

#8

Sorry, don’t understand?

#9

We can’t blame scriptures for the attitude of people. Right?

#10

Well they have been passed down by us, and preached by us, so we are responsible. The question is, is what we do, responsible? Is any of the way we organise, society, religion, armies, all of that, is it responsible?

#11

This is the problem Peter.

See, ‘we are creating politics,economy,etc…’ but we actually don’t know - only humans created these scriptures/religion. We are interpreting that, if ‘politics,etc…’ are created by humans, then ‘religion’ should also created by humans. Actually, we don’t know.

I really don’t know fully about Christianity/bible/stories of Christ, but to my knowledge - when Jesus came, he doesn’t blame what was written by Moses. Instead, he blamed the people, who handles it by misinterpreting, for their own ‘self’. Right?

We really don’t know, what religion is. We have to find it out. But in other way, we should not come to a conclusion that, what every religion said, is invention of thoughts/humans. Isn’t it?

If a boy has committed a murder, can we prosecute his ‘father/mother’ without inquiry?. Likewise, because of the ‘ego/self’ of the religious followers, is it right to throw away those scriptures/religions without deep/serious inquiry?

#12

Which is to say that organized religion is a ‘map’ to get you somewhere. Read this, do this, follow this and you may reach the ‘goal’. Jk is saying, there is no ‘way to get there. ‘There’ is time. To follow an organized religion cannot not be “misinterpreted “. It aims at a goal in time, in the future. It is misguided. And we can see that they have had little effect on how we live and our understanding of what we are. I have read that the word ‘religion ‘ originally meant to ‘re-yoke’ or reconnect. JK has implied that that reconnection is with the “eternal”. ‘Belief’ can never be that, can it?

#13

Why do you say ‘religions’ are beliefs Dan?

#14

Organized religions are maps to get you somewhere. Why follow a map if you don’t believe it is accurate?

#15

I don’t believe it is accurate/imagination. But to find out whether it is accurate/imagination - i should inquire those, right?. One should not accept/reject those when K,a,b,c says so. Right?

To find out ‘truth is a pathless land’, I have to take the paths said in many religions seriously and only then I can find out it’s actuality - if it can lead/not lead there. If I say “there is no path”, without taking those, I accept K as an authority/guide. Right?

#16

I suppose that it does take a certain sophistication to not see ‘truth ‘ as a treasure that is hidden somewhere and that an organized religion provides the map on how to find it. “Truth is a pathless land” is the negation of all maps and a negation of the idea that ‘truth’ is something out ‘there’ and in ‘time’ it can be found. You can’t ‘follow’ anything to ‘get it’ because whatever or whoever , can’t know what, where it is , etc because it’s not an ‘it’, is it? So if you feel all that makes sense, why immerse yourself in a religious tradition? Except for the feeling of ‘belonging ‘ and security and the entertainment / stimulation aspects.

#17

You are absolutely right about how the devotion takes place in religious sects. I too agree that. But what if there is ‘actual devotion’ without those belongings, security and entertainments?

They use it as a way to escape sufferings. But I’m saying not about that. I’m saying though after you had end the sufferings, there thought still continues to arise. I’m only speaking about that.

What if, the ‘actual devotion’ is surrendering everything to him as,

To hold him tight whatever comes/goes, Whatever right/wrong. The truth is the only thing. Holding onto it and not deviating/falling again to these lust/desires. We don’t know whether truth is ‘this/that’ - so asking the ‘truth’ itself by fully devoting my ‘self’.

#18

Let the ‘lust’, the desire, ‘flower’, no?. Deny it and you are in conflict with yourself, right? That is how we have been with ourselves, picking, choosing, denying, condemning, grooming, made crazy by guilt, etc. See, as I hear Paul saying, that it can’t be ‘pushed’ away, suppressed, by the fear of what it will lead to. There is no ‘controller’. Can it be aware of itself? Not ‘you’ being aware of ‘it’?

1 Like
#19

In life I am doing many things. My understanding of all this, is the doing. It is not an understanding separate from what I am doing. I will be able to say what I am doing, give reasons for it, explain it, but not understand my basic condition. What I am doing is both rational and irrational, sane and insane. Without understanding myself, I will have a false understanding of what I am doing, and how I am doing it. This includes not understanding I don’t actually understand. This is very disturbing, dangerous, and I don’t want to go there. The way we might start to go there is in the experiencing of some very disturbing or dangerous reality which has a profound affect on the mind. This has nothing to do with religion, philosophy, or wisdom, none of that, and it is obvious all ideas and beliefs are an accumulation of thought.

1 Like