I am not sure what this cryptic statement is referring to? Does it have anything to do with what I or James wrote to you? Did anything we write or share with you have any impact on you? Are you looking at yourself and seeing anything possibly differently? At the very least, do you see that the Buddhist phrase about killing the Buddha actually makes a lot of sense ? That your view on that has changed?
I also wanted to add some praise, positive words towards Charley, to balance it out some, it is not all criticism or pointing out blind spots.
I think Charley is a very insightful, wise poster who has studied and lived Krishnamurtis teachings deeply in her own unique way. I dont doubt that she has seen some things deeply and has lived them. I was touched by her comments about going all the way, " I do not know how far Charley can go, because of a lifetime of physical weakness. Will see, eh?" I am rooting for you and hope you are able to go all the way, despite your physical limitations.
I found this whole story strange. You were very interested in hearing the fellow at first, and then just because of his attitude (which I cant blame him, he was banned from the tent it sounded like) you were no longer interested in hearing him at all? Very odd, strange, I feel.
Sorry to keep asking about this, but I dont understand the last sentence, why this visit made what clear to you? What do you mean by how easily it is to get lost in swamp or jungle of life? Can you explain more about that, what you mean by swamp or jungle of life in regards to what you wrote above. It is all not so clear to me. Hope you dont mind me asking for clarification. I really want to understand what you are trying to share here, for it seems interesting and worthwhile to explore.
You will never understand it at full, at most form an oplnion about this matter.
But let me try to clarify some details.
This whole week of visit at Brockwood made clear to me that as we have to find our own way through life its like a swamp or jungle there’s no path to go so find our way, which is for everyone a different one, details will give you clues and some of those details were as well as the attitude and preassumption from the staff as well as from this guy, as well as many other details.
This didn’t has and have not any effect on me loving the man and his message.
Only Reinforced my already started lifelong journy.
I just want to say that I apologise if I have upset you with any comments I have made. I have tried to be fair, but I may have overstepped the mark in my attempts at frankness. I probably have some images of you based on my experiences of previous relationships, and I acknowledge that these may be playing a part in my reactions to you.
Even though we are not able to communicate in a normal or happy way, I genuinely wish you well Charley. You haven’t asked me for my good wishes, and have no need of my sympathy, but, like David, I see that you are doing something worthwhile on the forum, even if I am not always able to appreciate it. I don’t want to undermine the very fine insights your posts often show, and hope you can continue to express yourself in your usual robust manner, irrespective of anything said here.
You may not be aware, but the news channels in Canada, have been going on and on here in Canada, of the Pope’s visit to Canada. The Catholic Church was responsible for about 70% of all residential schools, where their onus was in wiping out any trace of cultural identity in the indigenous children who were placed there, and replacing that with their ideology and belief system, to which that so many children were murdered, raped, and psychologically destroyed. The rationale for his visit was to participate in something called “reconciliation”, and so there were many conciliatory speeches made by everyone there.
“K: If it is clear that thought has brought about this division between man and man throughout the world and that however cleverly organized the world is by thought, it cannot possibly bring about the unity of man, then we have to find if there is an action which is not the product of thought.” K: Talks with American Students, Chapter 10, 2nd of 4 Talks at the New School for Social Research, New York, 3rd October 1968
“K: Man has always sought what he considered to be God, truth; he has always striven after it out of fear, out of his hopelessness, out of his despair and disorder. He sought it and he thought he found it. And the discovery of that he began to organize.” K: The Impossible Question, Part Two, Chapter 7, 8th Public Dialogue, Saanen, 9 August 1970
“K: Man is searching for something more than the transient. Probably from time immemorial he has been asking himself if there is something sacred, something that is not worldly, that is not put together by thought, by the intellect. He has always asked if there is a reality, a timeless state not invented by the mind, not projected by thought, but a state of mind where time does actually not exist: if there is something ‘divine’, ‘sacred’, ‘holy’ (if one can use those words), that is not perishable? Organized religions seem to have supplied the answer. They say there is a reality, there is a God; there is something which the mind cannot possibly measure. Then they begin to organize what they consider to be the real and man is led astray. You may remember the story about the devil who was walking down the street with a friend; they saw a man ahead stoop down and pick up something from the road. And as he picked it up and looked at it there was a great delight in his face; the friend of the devil asked: “What it was that he had picked up?” and the devil said, “It is truth.” The friend said: “Isn’t that a very bad business for you?” The devil answered, “Not at all, I am going to help him organize it.” (Laughter) K: You Are the World, Chapter 7, 6th February 1969, 4th Public Talk at University of California, Berkeley
This idea of “reconciliation” is so misleading. How can one consider reconciling with someone (some organization) who is responsible for anything which has caused so much damage - not just with indigenous children, but which has caused damage for millennia. Wholeness can never be organized. Anyone who speaks of organizing people into groups can never see Truth, can never have an insight.
“Question: Do you think that pure food has anything to do with the fulfilment of your ideas of life? Are you a vegetarian? (Laughter)
“K: You know, humour is impersonal. I hope that the questioner is not hurt when people laugh. If I am a vegetarian, what of it? It is not what goes into your mouth that will free you, but the finding out of true values, from which arises complete action. K: The Collected Works, Vol. 01 (1933-1934), The Art of Listening, Fourth Talk at Frognerseteren, September 12, 1933
“Question: What has diet to do with the mental process or intelligence?
“K: Certainly, a great deal. Understanding reality does not necessarily depend on the kind of food one eats; one may be a vegetarian and be vicious and dull, or a meat-eater and be intelligent in the widest sense. If one overeats, it is an indication of thoughtlessness; moderate and rational diet is necessary to alert thought. Too much fasting also dulls the mind. Not to be angry, not to be disparaging in our talk, not to be ruthless, obstinate, not to flatter, not to receive flattery—these are more important than the consideration of what we eat. Of primary importance are your thoughts and feelings. Cleanliness of food is not cleanliness of thought. Again we begin at the wrong end, with the external, hoping to grasp that state of inward peace, which cannot be realized through the mere alteration of environment. We hope to have psychological peace through discipline and denial, through imitation and isolation; we begin at the periphery, hoping to create inward peace and compassion, but we must begin from the centre—the centre from which arise conflict and sorrow. We must become aware of the process of craving and its outward expressions; in discerning these, there is a natural restraint not imposed through fear.” K: The Collected Works, Vol. 03 (1936-1944), The Mirror of Relationship, Seventh Talk in The Oak Grove, July 7, 1940
“Swamiji: A vegetarian—she’s a fanatical vegetarian—asked me, “Is pure vegetarianism necessary for yoga practice?” I said, “Not so important. Let’s talk about something else.” And she was horrified. She came back to me and said, “How can you say that? You can’t say that vegetarianism is of secondary value. You must say it’s of primary value.” I replied, “Forgive me—I said something, but it doesn’t matter.” I then asked her, “Do you believe in war, defence forces, defending your country and so on?” “Yes,” she said, “otherwise how can we live—we have to.” I replied, “If I call you a cannibal, how do you react to that? This man kills a small animal to sustain his life, but you are willing to kill people to sustain yours. Like a cannibal.” She didn’t like that—but I think she saw the point later. K: Good . K: The Awakening of Intelligence, Part IV, Chapter 2, 2nd Conversation with Swami Venkatesananda, Saanen, 26th July 1969
It has been said, “you are what you eat” - especially when feeding from a craving for knowledge.
So, still converting epubs into docx and formatting for a uniform fit. And adding exerpts…
“Question: Would you please talk or explain why there is so much difficulty in communication between individuals?
“K: Sir, we are not individuals at all. We think we are individuals—that is merely a word, which has very little meaning. When you examine that word in the dictionary, not the opinion or theory of what an individual should be, you will find that it derives from the Latin word ‘indivisible’— “not capable of being divided, broken up”.
"How can two human beings who are broken up in themselves communicate with each other, to ‘communicate’ being to care, to cooperate, to work, to create together? There is a possibility of communication, when both human beings share a common problem and are deeply concerned with the solution or the understanding of that problem. When you are deeply concerned, you can commune both verbally and non-verbally; but, if one human being has certain opinions, conclusions, ideas and the other has opposing ideas, how can there be communication between the two? If you are a Hindu and I am a Muslim, how can we communicate? There is a possibility of communion, only when you and I are both free of our petty little ambitions and tyrannies, that means, when we are really individuals, indivisible. Then, communion is possible. That means, when there is love between us—not opinion, not conclusions—when we really care dispassionately, intensely, then there is a possibility of communing with each other.” K: The First Step Is the Last Step, Old Chapter 9 (from Krishnamurti in India 1970), 4th Public Talk, Madras, 17th January 1971 [Deleted in the re-edited version]
“K: But the first thing is the art of listening. Art means to put everything in its right place. You may have your prejudices, you may have your conclusions, but when you are listening put them away—the interpreting, comparing, judging, evaluating, put all that away. Then communication takes place. When somebody says “I love you,” you don’t say, “Let me think about it.”
Radha Burnier: That is, putting away everything is the same as having the same intensity and being at the same level.
K: Otherwise what is the point of it?” K: Exploration into Insight, Listening with the Heart, Madras, 7th December 1976
This all comes back to communing, that wonderful word, which points to the most important and crucial action, the first step, communing with oneself. “I” don’t feel that real communication is possible between any two people unless both are communing with their selves at least to some degree…(using “the other” as a mirror to see oneself - the only healthy way to use “the other” btw).
And “I” would add, that communication doesn’t really exist between two people until they are at the same level with the same intensity, which to Charley implies communion. Somehow those exercising thought as their actual tool to explore do not seem to be able to demonstrate that communion; there is only this dull mechanicalness to their words, no matter how articulate their povs, ideas, viewpoints, opinions, conclusions. In a way, thought appears to be more concerned with the form of their expression rather than the content. So the passion and intensity is always missing, except when they are throwing tomatoes…
“Comment: This move to do away with organized religion may itself form an organized religion.
K: How, sir?
Comment: For instance, neither Christ nor Ramakrishna Paramahamsa wanted an organized religion, but forgetting the very essence of the teachings, people have built around them an organized religion.
K: Why do we do this? Is it not because we want collective security, we want to feel safe?” K: The Collected Works, Vol. 05 (1948-1949), Choiceless Awareness, First Talk in Bangalore, July 4, 1948
“K: That is, I am not seeking comfort; I am trying to find out what is true. Are you in that position? Surely, when you are seeking comfort, you can be persuaded by anyone, and therefore you lose self-confidence; but when you do not seek comfort but want to know the truth, when you are completely free from the desire to take refuge, then you will experience truth, and that experience will give you confidence. So, that is the first requirement, is it not? To know the truth of anything psychologically, you cannot seek comfort because the moment you want comfort, security, a haven in which you are protected, you will have what you want, but what you have will not be the truth. Therefore, you will be persuaded by another who offers a greater comfort, a greater security, a better refuge, and so you are driven from port to port, and that is why you have lost confidence. You have no confidence because you have been driven from one refuge to another by your own desire to be comfortable, to be secure. So, a man who would seek the truth in relationship must be free of the destructive and limiting desire to be comfortable, to be secure. This fear of losing oneself psychologically must go.”
“So, to find out what is true, or what is the purpose of life, or to discover the truth of reincarnation or of any human problem, the inquirer who is demanding truth, who wants to know truth, must be very clear as regards his intentions. If his intentions are to seek security, comfort, then obviously he does not want truth because truth may be one of the most devastating, discomforting things. The man who is seeking comfort does not want truth; he only wants security, safety, a refuge in which he will not be disturbed. But a man who is seeking truth must invite disturbances, tribulations because it is only in moments of crisis that there is alertness, watchfulness, action. Then only that which is is discovered and understood.” K: The Collected Works, Vol. 05 (1948-1949), Choiceless Awareness, Third Talk in Bangalore, July 18, 1948
“K: … you would like to join with others and create a community, but you do not want to start a community with yourself…” K: The Collected Works, Vol. 05 (1948-1949), Choiceless Awareness, Seventh Talk in Poona, October 10, 1948
Anyone who promises you “safety” is also promising you “comfort”. Have heard it said: there is safety in numbers, so one sees this happening so often in this world. Cliques, that odd thing one witnessed even in high school.
As K said, be wary of the one who offers you comfort.
“K: One sees the mind is always demanding to be certain, to be secure, to be safe. A mind that is safe, secure, is a bourgeois mind, a shoddy mind. Yet that is what all of us want: to be completely safe. And psychologically there is no such thing. See what takes place outwardly—it’s quite interesting if you observe it—each person wants to be safe, secure. And yet psychologically he does everything to bring about his own destruction. You can see this. As long as there are nationalities with their sovereign governments, with their armies and navies and so on, there must be war. And yet psychologically we are conditioned to accept that we are a particular group, a particular nation, belonging to a particular ideology, or religion.” K: You Are the World, Chapter 5, 2nd Public Talk at University of California, Berkeley, 4th February 1969
Again, as K said, be wary of the one who offers you comfort, and safety, because in a way, such a person wants you to be and stay as dead as they are, because then this activity of “the other” justifies their own personal choice(s). And anyone who threatens their personal choice will be attacked, verbally, and as one can see in the world, even physically. You see, the world outside is but a reflection of the world inside. So, each person who participates in this choice is responsible for the horrors, the madness, the insanity, etc. which are happening throughout the world without.
“K: You don’t know what truth is, what God is—if there is such a thing—or what is a truly religious mind. You have read about it, people have talked about it for millennia, have built monasteries, but actually they are living on other people’s knowledge, experience and propaganda. To find out, surely one must put aside all that completely, and therefore the enquiry into all this is a very serious matter. If you want to play with it, there are all kinds of so-called spiritual, religious entertainments, but they have no value whatsoever to a serious mind.” K: The Awakening of Intelligence, Part II, Chapter 3, 3rd Public Talk, Religious Experience. Meditation, New York, 25th April 1971
One has an absolute horror of things like reality TV, can’t even watch that kind of stuff. Have seen advertisements for things like that Big Brother, The Batchelor, something about people like the Kardashians, etc. Sort of sharing gossip… everything is “personal”, like sharing personal opinions, povs, judgements, all of which are just reactions – group therapy for people completely and entirely incapable of being individuals and living their own lives – so they are parasites, groupies, etc.
Discussed this messy world with someone a few days ago, and she said, “The world is broken.”
And in this reality TV, or even online so-called “reality chat” (if I can coin this phrase), thought attempts to make everything personal, which is the very antithesis of what is intelligence.
“K: You see, we are asking: what is intelligence? Can intelligence be cultivated? Is intelligence innate? Does thought see the truth of conflict, of division and all the rest of it, or is it the quality of mind that sees the fact and is completely quiet with the fact?—completely silent, not trying to go beyond it, to overcome it, to change it, but is completely still with the fact. It is that stillness that is intelligence. Intelligence is not thought. Intelligence is this silence and is therefore totally impersonal. It does not belong to any group, to any person, to any race, to any culture.” K: The Awakening of Intelligence, Part VII, Chapter 7, 7th Public Talk, Thought, Intelligence, and the Immeasurable, Saanen, 1st August 1971
So, you see, a relationship based on thought is no relationship at all, because everything within such a connection is personal; so, it is just image-making. Hence, dialogue where people strive to bring in the personal is silly, vain, and irrelevant.
First you say that what we call “relationship” is “no relationship at all” because it is personal, just image-making - then you say, “dialogue where people strive to bring in the personal is silly, vain, and irrelevant”. If the only relationship we’re capable of is “personal”, we don’t “strive to bring in the personal” if it’s all we can do. You need an editor.