Relationships

Kinfonet Discussion
1

Dialogue is impossible without friendship, without love. Affection/fondness is not love. Having read K, I saw that he said how the words “friend”, “freedom” and “Friday” were all related in meaning, etymologically. Friday was so named to honour the Scandinavian Goddess Frigga, goddess of love. In other words, these three words all have the same meaning, and they all mean love. So, I ask are you loving?

“Action means doing, moving. But when you have idea, it is merely ideation going on, thought process going on in relation to action. If there is no idea, what would happen? You are what you are. You are uncharitable, you are unforgiving, you are cruel, stupid, thoughtless. Can you remain with that? If you do, then see what happens. When I recognize I am uncharitable, stupid, what happens when I am aware it is so? Is there not charity, is there not intelligence? When I recognize uncharitableness completely, not verbally, not artificially, when I realize I am uncharitable and unloving, in that very seeing of ‘what is’ is there not love? Don’t I immediately become charitable? If I see the necessity of being clean, it is very simple; I go and wash. But if it is an ideal that I should be clean, then what happens? Cleanliness is then postponed or is superficial.”

J. Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom, Questions and Answers, Question 25, ‘On Action Without Idea’

"Krishnamurti: Now, this question, whether one needs a guru, is put over and over again in different forms. Sirs, the vast majority of you have gurus - that is one of the most extraordinary things here. So, for this evening at least, put them aside and let us investigate the problem. The questioner asks: `Does a loving heart need a guide?’ Do you understand? Surely, a loving heart needs no guide, for love itself is the real, the eternal. A loving heart is generous, kind, unreserved, withholding nothing, and such a heart knows the real; it knows that which is without a beginning and without an end. But most of us have no such heart. Our hearts are dry, empty, making a lot of noise. Our hearts are filled with the things of the mind. And as our hearts are empty, we go to another to fill them. We go to another seeking that eternal security which we call God; we go to another to find that permanent gratification which we call reality. Because our own hearts are dry, we are seeking a guru who will fill them. Can anyone, whether visible or invisible, fill your heart? Your gurus give you disciplines, practices; they don’t tell you how to think, but rather what to think. And what happens? You practise, you meditate, you discipline, you conform yourself, and yet your heart remains dull, empty and unloving; you discipline yourself and tyrannize your family. Do you think that by meditating, disciplining yourself, you will know love? Sir, without love, you cannot find reality, can you? Without being tender, gentle, considerate, how can you know the real? And can anyone teach you how to love? Surely, love is not a technique. Through technique, you cannot know it, can you? You will know every other thing, but not love, So, you can never know reality through any discipline, through any practice, through any conformity; because, conformity, discipline, practice, is repetition, which dulls the mind, freezes the heart - and that is what you want. You want to make your mind dull, because your mind is restless, wandering, active, incessantly striving; and not understanding this restless mind, you want to smother it, you want to discipline it according to your pattern, you want to force it according to a set of rules and regulations, and thereby you strangulate the mind, make the mind utterly dull. That is what is happening, is it not? Look at your mind: How dull it is, how insensitive, because you have pursued the gurus so long. It has become a habit, a routine, to go from one guru to another. Each guru tells you to do something, and you do it till you find it unsatisfactory, and then you go over to somebody else, thereby exhausting your mind by this constant use; for that which is constantly used is worn out. What you are really seeking in a guru is not understanding, but gratification, permanent security, which you call the eternal, God, the real, truth, or what you will. And since you seek gratification, you will find a guru who will gratify you; but surely, that is not understanding, it does not bring happiness, it does not bring love. On the contrary, it destroys love. Love is something new, eternal from moment to moment. It is never the same, never as it was before; and without its perfume, without its beauty and its goodness, to search through a guru for that which you must find out for yourself is utterly useless. So, our problem is not whether a visible or invisible guru will help us, but how to bring about that state of being in which we know what love is. For love is virtue, and virtue is not a practice; but virtue brings freedom. And it is only when there is freedom that the eternal can come into being.

“So, our question is, how is it possible for a dull mind, an empty heart, to come to love, to be sensitive, to know the beauty, the richness of love? First, you must be aware that your mind is dull, that your thought process has no significance. You must be aware that your heart is empty without finding excuses for it, without justifying or condemning it. Just be aware, try it, Sirs. Be aware and see if your mind is not dull, if your heart is not empty; though you are married, have children and possessions, is it not empty? Aren’t you empty? Your mind is dull, though you know all the religious books; though your mind is an encyclopedia, full of information, it is dull, weary, exhausted. Just be aware, be passively aware without condemning without justifying; be open to discover how dull, how weary your mind is and also that your heart is empty, lonely and aching. I am not mesmerizing you - just be aware of all this and you will see, if you are passively aware, that there comes a transformation, an extraordinarily quick response; and in that response, you will know what it is to love. In that response, there is stillness, there is quiet; and in that quiet you will find the indescribable, the unutterable.”

J. Krishnamurti, Bombay, 5th Public Talk, 15th February 1948, Collected Works Vol. 04 – The Observer is the Observed

Personally, I was not a loving person as a younger person; however, life gave me an opportunity to fill my heart with compassion (love) - prior to discovering K. And so when I came to read K, I found insight meditation a piece of cake, easy-peasy. So, when K said that the word is not the thing. I stopped reading and immediately tried to see if there could be the seeing of it, and saw it immediately, and bang, the explosion; and of course, after that, I understood completely that words are only referents, and attachment to words in themselves would be a strictly meaningless pursuit, which could never lead to truth. So, I ask, are you loving?

2

In seeing that I am uncharitable there is love, but if in that moment of truth I have “become” charitable, this kind of becoming is antithetical to wanting to become charitable and working toward that end. If clarity means the abandonment of ambition, “becoming” over time is self-deception, and becoming instantaneously is transformative truth.

3

The word “become” appears to me to be unfortunate in K’s text, if one just has a cursory glance at it.

Yes, true.

K: “Wait, there it is. When there is the realization, the activity has always been from the centre, and the centre cannot possibly reach the other goal, the other side, other dimension, whatever you like to call it, across the river, it says, “All right”, finished.
“So, I have come to that point when I realize completely, when the mind realizes completely, there is nothing you can do.”
K, Brockwood Park, 6th Seminar Meeting, 18th September 1979

Personally, I tested this, what fun this was. And so, another insight. There was the seeing that the “I” could never reach that “other side” of the “river”. And, of course, there was that wonderful explosion and release of trapped energy. So, there is the understanding that “becoming” is false, an illusion, unreal.

There is Michelle O’Bama’s book, “Becoming”, which I had noticed is always presently on the NYT best sellers list. It is a book I have never read and have no intention of reading - what damage such a book does and could do. This kind of book promotes the glorification of the “self”.

Ah, you bring up the most interesting problem of desire… “wanting”

4

This same condition, the becoming, is the way the mind plays with words, and in the mind, psychologically, is full of answers, and conclusions. None of the verbal activity has come to a rest, and there is not a passive awareness. It is quite extraordinary to be aware of all the mind activity, at any time, and how there are very subtle levels of self concern, working towards something, or thinking about something. It is like a machine. Then watching all this, there is a whole awareness of the mind, body, sensations, and a simple integration with the world. That integration is relationship.

5

It is the brain that works like a machine, not the mind.

6

Are you sure of that - “with the world”? More likely, integration is within oneself. Peter and Charley are two separate beings. We cannot come together to “complete” each other. That would be an illusion, eh? Charley and the “big fat lie guy” can never be integrated. And that “big fat lie guy” and all his followers are very much a part of this world. Also, I wonder whether the integration you have brought up is not an idea, even suggestive of a goal. Are we talking of the same “integration”? I trust you are not implying integrating the various fragments, right? That would be an illusion, right?

Charley’s heart and mind have fused, and Charley’s heart/mind is properly centred in the heart chakra, even hot/warm to outside touch there. This fusion is unbreakable - rock solid, so to speak. This is integration. Somewhere along… - being in meditation - this fusion occurred. The Charley that existed prior to “K”, and in the beginning of this incredible adventure into my “self”, had a hot/warm solar plexus - like most people… unbalanced. As you can see, I see this integration as a by-product not as a goal. I would be wary of introducing the word “relationship” into this at the outset, with regards to “integration”. People might get the wrong idea, right? - even adding to the incredible amount of ideas and thoughts they already have.

Yes to “passive awareness”.

7

Oneself is the fragmentation. I am not separate from the world. It is not an action. See the integrity of all this. Do you really have to be sure of what someone else says? You see what we are talking about without modifying the words, or checking the ideas, internally.

8

I am not the tree outside, nor am I the moon, or the stars. I didn’t create them. Integration is only within.

9

I didn’t realize that I was not allowed to question any statement you made with you.

10

Considering this is my post, I will now add a link:

A Dialogue with Oneself, K

There may be those are interested in following and reflecting upon the content of K’s beautiful understanding in this dialogue, and some who are not. Personally, one can easily see that for K, love was the foundation of everything he did. Had it not been for that love, Anderson would have never consented to all those talks he had had with him, and many others would have refused to talk with him, etc. It is in this spirit, one can understand that when there is this love, infinite patience is also part of this love, apart from the beauty of his understanding with others that he always showed over the years. So, in this post, the reason for my putting up this post is only for some to consider and reflect upon in the privacy of their own reflections - whether or not they are loving.

1 Like
11

There is also the fact that K used simple language. He used words that everyone could understand, and it seems to me that this was because he loved everyone; and, because of this love, he was able to reach out to everyone, whether they were idealists, intellectuals, whatever - well-educated or not, rich, poor, etc. In other words, the relatability of his words showed the extent to which he was in relationship with everyone - while he spoke. He could and did relate to everyone. No matter where anyone was coming from, whatever their differing layers of consciousness, one always had the feeling that he was talking to you, with you. To me, this showed the extent to which he was the epitome of a man who understood what it meant to relate to people, to be in relationship with everyone.

12

Of course, because of this love, this relationship he had with everyone, that his words were beautiful, the very essence of beauty. And, it is because of this beauty, and the fact that they were uttered out of love, out of his “universal mind”, that they touched so many people. It is because of all of his work, that millions were also touched by his words, and even because of this work, that this site exists as well. And, personally, his words touched me; but I must say here, it was because I opened myself up to his suggestion that one listen, just listen, and allow his words to enter deeply into the unconscious. So, now I find what delight there is in (feeling - not the right word) in being almost like a small child, doing “adult” things. So, every day is fun, and every day begins a new adventure, never knowing what the day will bring. And I suppose one of the greatest treasures is in having an innocent mind - something that I have never before thought about at all, but just realized this fact while being on this site, that had been in “me” for some time.

2 Likes
13

So, relationships can be seen as key to life. So, now, one asks, to what or to whom does one have a relationship with? It seems to me that the crux of any relationship is to feel and be related to another - therefore, I must say here that it is important to understand that a relationship can show one who one is, it can reveal oneself to oneself. So, this post is all about self-knowing. So, I am saying that a relationship is a process - really - a process where one can understand who one is in relationship with something, with someone.

So, can one pressure someone to understand themselves or to be a certain way, in any verbal exchange? So, I say, no, because it would be a wrong approach. It is such an extraordinary difficult process to understand oneself that it seems to me to be quite impossible to even imagine or think that one an understand another, to know another, to get another. It is important to understand that everyone is coming from their own background, their own conditioning. So, I am saying that the whole point of relationship is self-understanding while one is in relationship with someone, something.

And, because of what I have read elsewhere on this site, I am also asking, whether it is possible to die to one’s self without that self-understanding? Obviously, without that self-understanding, the entire idea of dying to self is speculation. It is speculation because it does not lead to an understanding of what the essence of relationship means.

Further, I will add this, can one consider that one is in relationship with anyone, anything, unless this process is self-revelatory, unless one is in this process of self-discovery?

All of which leads me to ask, whether it is possible or perhaps, more precisely, even correct to use the mind as the instrument of self-discovery? In other words, then the problem and challenge that I invite the reader is to consider and reflect upon to what extent can one use a conditioned mind, a layer of consciousness which exists because of this conditioning, to be the instrument of self-discovery?

14

Hello Charley. Interesting question. Krishnamurti spoke about observation with a silent mind as a way of discovering things. If we observe a tree with a silent mind, perhaps we’ll discover it rather than look at it with our filter of conditioning. To discover anything new, don’t we have to be free of our past conditioning?

15

Hiya Sean,

Holding the conditioned mind in abeyance is observing with a silent mind, is that it - is that what you are asking? There is a difference between having a quiet mind and a silent mind, so to which are you referring?

16

No Charley, I wasn’t saying that. I think Krishnamurti describes observing in silence very well below. Perhaps “observing with a silent mind” is not the same thing. Is that what you meant?

“One may commune with a tree, for example, or with a mountain, or a river. I do not know if you have ever sat beneath a tree and really tried to commune with it. It is not sentimentality, it is not emotionalism: you are directly in contact with the tree. There is an extraordinary intimacy of relationship. In such communion there must be silence, there must be a deep sense of quietness; your nerves, your body are at rest; the heart itself almost comes to a stop. There is no interpretation, there is no communication, no sharing. The tree is not you, nor are you identified with the tree: there is only this sense of intimacy in a great depth of silence. I do not know if you have ever tried it. Try it sometime - when your mind is not chattering, not wandering all over the place, when you are not soliloquizing, when you are not remembering the things that have been done or that must be done. Forgetting all that, just try communing with a mountain, with a stream, with a person, with a tree, with the very movement of life. That demands an astonishing sense of stillness, and a peculiar attention - not concentration, but an attention which comes with ease, with pleasure.”

SAANEN 3RD PUBLIC TALK 16TH JULY 1964

1 Like
17

hi Sean,

lovely quote.

Now, to get back to your original enquiry and to my question, the conditioned mind is not the appropriate instrument to self-discovery. In saying,

which is like saying the cart must come before the horse, right? While freedom must be at the start, that is linked to awareness and the understanding of the limitations of the conditioned mind, right? It is this self-awareness that brings self-discovery. So, I say that it is not a quiet mind that leads to awareness. It is this awareness that leads to understanding, and hence to a quietening of the mind. While any fragment (layer of consciousness) is in operation (thought/thinking), that very process may very well interfere with self-discovery. Perhaps, I am wrong, I don’t know.

The conditioned mind may very well feel/believe/think that it has to rely/depend on someone else, on another, on “the other”, in order to discover anything. That may very well be part and parcel of its conditioning. You see, when one realizes that that is precisely that particular limitation (or for that matter, any other aspect of one’s conditioning) that may interfere in self-discovery or for that matter in discovering anything “new”, then there is the possibility of the understanding of one’s self that may become possible - understanding of one’s self by oneself. And that understanding is the right relationship, the correct relationship, to see oneself by oneself, right? In other words, awareness with “the other” being yourself is the right relationship.

18

Hello again Charley. You may be right here but I don’t know. Perhaps the awareness that the chattering mind separates us from what is going on around us does lead to a quietening of the mind. Maybe this happens from moment to moment. Or do some people have a quiet mind most of the time? How do you see this?

19

Sean,

So, there is enquiry above, how will you find out? Will you depend on me to find out, on what I might say, what anyone else would say - you know, I might be delusional, and the other that you may ask might also be delusional, right? Will you test it yourself, and find out for yourself? What are you going to do?

20

Hi again Charley. I don’t think I would depend on you or anyone else here to find out something. I’m sure we’re all influenced by each other to some degree, but as we don’t know each other, our mutual influence is probably not that great. What am I going to do? Well, Krishnamurti’s advice in the quote I already posted on this thread seems a pretty good starting point for us all:

“One may commune with a tree, for example, or with a mountain, or a river. I do not know if you have ever sat beneath a tree and really tried to commune with it. It is not sentimentality, it is not emotionalism: you are directly in contact with the tree. There is an extraordinary intimacy of relationship. In such communion there must be silence, there must be a deep sense of quietness; your nerves, your body are at rest; the heart itself almost comes to a stop. There is no interpretation, there is no communication, no sharing. The tree is not you, nor are you identified with the tree: there is only this sense of intimacy in a great depth of silence. I do not know if you have ever tried it. Try it sometime - when your mind is not chattering, not wandering all over the place, when you are not soliloquizing, when you are not remembering the things that have been done or that must be done. Forgetting all that, just try communing with a mountain, with a stream, with a person, with a tree, with the very movement of life. That demands an astonishing sense of stillness, and a peculiar attention - not concentration, but an attention which comes with ease, with pleasure.”

SAANEN 3RD PUBLIC TALK 16TH JULY 1964

1 Like