Yes, I think this is very true. Surely seeing clearly itself is the thing that brings about change. Anger rises within me and I observe it as it rises. I understand it and there is change in that moment.
And you discount âinnerâ division of should and should notâŚgood vs badâŚright vs wrong? Itâs just as important a factor as âouterâ division.
1 Like
No, I donât discount âinner division and should and should notâ. As for âgood vs badâ I do have a problem with that because it seems so arbitrary; what is good and bad. There are the obvious bad things like murder, war (which is organized murder) and many other things. But the religious people have so perverted what is âgood and badâ and I certainly donât go along with a lot of what they think is good or bad. Iâm sure there are a lot of reasons for division. I just posted a couple of the big ones. What I am saying is that the kind of division that leads to nations going to war is not because someone is having a bad day, a sore back, hungry and so on. The major confrontations involve political and economic gains that seem to most often lead to war. Corrupt governments, such as the US has had forâŚyears and years, start wars for economic and political reasons. Look what we and the Israelis have done in the Middle East. Two criminal and powerful countries killing for the control of oil and/or the control of a people who have been displaced and have a different religious belief from their oppressors.
I have a quote for you that is somewhat relevant to this discussion:
âThe greatest tragedy in Mankindâs entire history may be the hijacking of morality by Religionâ
Arthur C. Clarke
That is my take too Sean. The quality of the seeing factors the quality of the change
The âifâ caught my eye first. Too many âifsâ invite speculation, which is thought going off on its own. âIf we are pure consciousnessâ is not a good starting point. We do not know if there is any such thing as âpure consciousnessâ and I strongly suspect that there is not such a thing. It is like speculating, "If I were a unicorn . . . " Delightfully childish but very shallow.
âI think itâs the body.â Again, this is the testimony of thought. It invites a different speculation, that the body and the mind are two things. The duality of body and mind is one K invariably contested. He described mind as a âmaterial process.â That is, a process of the body.
I look at it holistically: Mind and body are different aspects of the same pattern and that pattern is what we call âlife.â
It depends on how you define âactionâ. If someone strikes you on the face and you do nothing, then that is an action of non-retaliation. Your âserious mindâ is not doing nothing if âIt is seeing all the lively nature, aware of all the sensationsâ, as you put it. I do that all the time, when in Amsterdam, sitting on the front steps beside the canal seeing all that lively nature and watching the pretty girls cycling by. In that timelessness, there was definitely beauty and much love.
I agree. What is the nature of that pattern that morphs from the physical to the mental in facilitating the way we live?
As I do not see any morphing I cannot answer. The physical and the mental are two aspects of the same movement.
Yes, active inaction. Mere attention to the mechanical movement of thought. The quote of the day speaks to this nicely:
You are walking down the road, somebody passes you by, you observe and you may say to yourself, âHow ugly he is; how he smells; I wish he would not do this or thatâ. You are aware of your responses to that passer-by, you are aware that you are judging, condemning or justifying; you are observing. You do not say, âI must not judge, I must not justifyâ. In being aware of your responses, there is no decision at all. You see somebody who insulted you yesterday. Immediately all your hackles are up, you become nervous or anxious, you begin to dislike; be aware of your dislike, be aware of all that, do not âdecideâ to be aware. Observe, and in that observation there is neither the âobserverâ nor the âobservedâ - there is only observation taking place. The âobserverâ exists only when you accumulate in the observation; when you say, âHe is my friend because he has flattered meâ, or, 'He is not my friend, because he has said something ugly about me, or something true which I do not like,. That is accumulation through observation and that accumulation is the observer. When you observe without accumulation, then there is no judgement. You can do this all the time; in that observation naturally certain definite decisions are made, but the decisions are natural results, not decisions made by the observer who has accumulated.
What I find interesting is the line about âdecisions being made naturallyâ. K appears to be saying that thought can function appropriately under certain circumstances.
Yes, it is one movement of life with two aspects: mind and body. The bodily aspect shares the same physical qualities as a dishwasher and that is why the mind can apply the body to use it. Even if the mind, like the body, is a material process, it has no physical qualities. We know the nature of the body. What is the nature of the mind? I am questioning the assertion that the mind is a material process.
You simply do not understand what I am saying. You think you are agreeing and then go on to state the opposite. Sorry, this type of discussion is not my thing.
I understand what you are saying. I am just putting it to the test against our (scientific) understanding of reality.
This blog is, serious about living differently. If you donât see the madness in the ways of the world, then this is a blog you will continually interrogate. But why not put the questioning to the way of life you live? We see the madness, but we see it in bits and pieces, on the TV, on the internet, which we donât think affects us directly. We have seen the state of the world in the streets, in the cities, in the climate, etc. but then try to modify the understanding, the degree of importance, the relative connection to ourselves. We are trying to keep it outside, separate, to keep it way from our own responsibility. This is not new. This is the invention of self. Of course self is useful, but we have become psychologically, deeply committed to this attachment to a self center. All our questioning is directed at all the various words, ideas, theories, beliefs, policies, religions, etc., and we just go on about our business as usual.
[quote=âPeter, post:34, topic:186â]
We are trying to keep it outside, separate, to keep it way from our own responsibility. This is not new. This is the invention of self.
YesâŚthe self does this all the timeâŚseparates me from the world.
Of course self is useful, but we have become psychologically, deeply committed to this attachment to a self center.
obviously
All our questioning is directed at all the various words, ideas, theories, beliefs, policies, religions, etc., and we just go on about our business as usual.
The intellect is of the self? Is this your pointâŚthat questioningâŚinquiring⌠has no effect whatsoever? What did K mean by âinquiringâ then. He placed importance on that, right?
I am doing that: questioning the way of life I live in the face of all that madness out there you pointed to. I am part of that madness because I live among the mad people, pay my taxes for the upkeep of a mad society of which I am a part, and vote in elections to send mad politicians to run a country of crazy people. In my inquiry, I come to see that all that madness that I observe out there is me. I am the observed, as in âthe observer is the observedâ. I am not separate from and different from that madness. In the very seeing of that, itâs over. Right? If you disagree, tell me how you are responding to the madness.
The way of looking at the world we know is fragmented. So when I say I know something, I am thinking about one of the various parts. When I am responding to something, am I responding completely, or is it a response to the parts, and this is my own fragmentation? Is it this fragmentation I am trying to fix when I pursue my life as I know it? So someone becomes devoted or committed to get a sense of a false completeness.
Inquiring is when there is careful listening and watching, not coming to any conclusion, not having any intentions, and not using a method. The study and use of a word, an idea, a theory, is an accumulation of information. The field of thought is limited to the known.
Bingo! And nothing new can ever happen there. And weâre stuck there unless we totally understand/see this fact. But does inquiring ever lead to insightâŚan insight that comes from outside the known?
Of course, it does; otherwise, why would Krishnamurti egg us to do it? We have to trust him on this.
Really? What leads you to say that?