It is evident, perhaps now more than at any other time in our history, that no lasting peace can come about unless we find a way to listen to each other without opposition and antagonism. That is, learn to become conscious of our own prejudices while at the same time paying close attention to what another is saying.
Questioner: Sir, what is your idea of a new world?
Krishnamurti: I have no idea about the new world. The ‘new’ world cannot be new if I have an idea about it. This is not just a clever statement, it is a fact. If I have an idea about it, the idea is born of my study and experience, is it not? It is born of what I have learnt, of what I have read, of what other people have said the new world should be. So, the ‘new’ world can never be new if it is a creation of the mind, because the mind is the old.
The importance of having a clear and open mind lies at the heart of Krishnamurti’s teachings and is an idea that many of us embrace. However, as we are too well aware, so long as that embrace remains ideational, it leads nowhere. It is then no different from any other idea or philosophy, a staked out position that determines what we think and isolates us from others who do not share that opinion. Ultimately, an intellectual understanding of the teachings, while important, is of limited value. Put another way, there is a vast difference between “living the teachings” and living by them.
It is only in becoming vitally aware of the core assumptions that comprise our identity - and suspending that attachment to the degree we are able - that we can begin to discover for ourselves whether it possible to have a deep connection not only with another human being but, just as importantly, with life itself.
There is this idea of becoming “vitally aware of the core assumptions that comprise our identity” which you contrast with the idea of some sort of journey of experimentation and discovery (over time?) - are these ideas at odds with each other in your mind?
If not, could you say what you mean by becoming “vitally aware” of identity? How is it different from an intellectual understanding for example?
My thoughts and feelings do originate from a vague sense of me-ness, which itself feels like a bunch of thoughts and feelings. That is not an idea for me, it is a fact that I can verify at any time by widening my field of awareness. There is no experimentation or time involved in this vital (as in living, not imagined) experiencing of the root of my perception.
It does take effort though in my experience to maintain such a vigil. The next moment seamlessly devolves back into narrowed mechanical movement. It’s like toggling between hands-off awareness and hands-on.
How can the vitality be seen? Is the vitality something not burdened with the sense of vulnerability and dependency on what you think? Could it be that by feeling the reaction of the dependent self and recognizing it for what it is, that the vitality gets freed up?
Can we tell the difference between an action that came from thinking, and an action that came from “seeing” something?
I think the difference between the two be felt. Talking about an intuitive feeling of something genuine taking place when the right action is taken. And the action isn’t burdened with doubt and a scanning for how others evaluate it. The contrived action on the other hand…
I reckon we all recognise this feeling of being a me very strongly - which is not at all what I thought you were pointing at by this “vital awareness”.
I thought this “vital awareness” of self, played some part in why someone would suspend their attachement to self.
Yes - me too. One provokes a continuation of the movement of need; and the other allows for a moment of peace/contentment.
Awareness in the sense of consciousness does not suspend, It is just awareness, a looking to see what is there. Awareness does not dictate what is seen, plays no part, it simply illuminates what is the case. To suspend attachment or not lies within the purview of self.
“It is the truth that will set you free, not your effort to become free.”
Non-memory based awareness is all that is needed for the truth to be seen. Easier said than done, of course. Everything else will naturally fall into place is the way I understand it. Thought is not devious. It does not consciously lie to itself. To others sure, but not to itself. It is mechanical. It is just operating on erroneous information of its own making.
The central issue as I see it is that we are not interested in truth. In being intelligent. Seeing things for what they are. Emperor’s new clothes and all that. We are in a stupor, convinced that what we perceive is not contrived, not self-generated, that we are already privy to the truth. So the problem is not felt to be a foundational one. If it were, awareness would kick into action of its own accord.
Viewed in the sense of intelligence, awareness is an end in itself, not a means to one.
That is because the foundations, clarity of mind by living a righteous life, have not been set and the reason why I´m starting to consider living a righteous life as more important than direct perception, where the effort has to be applied which also requires self-attentiveness, then the other comes on its own and one doesn´t hold on to it, as long as there is holding there is not experiencing, only experience and the experiencer and this experience is never definitive. Some think that just putting effort in maintaining the focus on awareness clears mind but I don´t think it to be so, both things are closely related though. I know this point of view is not very popular nor, of course, as amusing as intellectual gymnastics, yet that´s my point.
Sorry, couldn´t help it but it doesn´t fail: always the same, conditioned response.
Nah, just a ruse. Self is not left with the “idea” of blah, blah, blah, it is left with the perennial wisdom “know thyself”. If there is not “springing”, find out why and overcome it rather in ordinary life, down to earth matters that for most of people appear easy and common than in the dialectical, philosophical realm.
I read what Rick says in his thread that those who he calls “genius” are only the 1% of mankind. Funny enough, these “geniuses” think just the opposite, that there are more enlightened people than genuine spiritual seekers. Anyway.