← Back to Kinfonet

"The house is on fire"/Deceptive concern-compassion for the world

On account of Krishnmaurti harping on world compassion and world peace we have a bunch of copycats, who, for their own purposes have been using it for a myriad of agendas. It seems this one’s recent post on the thread “:house is on fire” either wasn’t understood or went through some serious efforts towards detraction (albeit unsuccessfully) simply because of personal dislike by one or two…and you know who you are.

As one was saying in that thread and therefore walking the talk as one should, unlike others as observed, this one will provide references so it’s clear there is no attempt to fudge up Krishnmaurti’s words, unlike others who often fudge it for their own agenda and benefit by saying “he said”, without any references.

"The house is burning" — It was said in the above mentioned thread the adage “house is burning” primarily means our own house, i.e. what’s going on inside the person, and secondarily what’s going on in the world. The former taking precedence over the latter. It was also said, there is no point talking about the world when our own house is burning. It was suggested to get off the proverbial and aptly true personal “horse” of arrogance, and instead with humility observe and fix our own house, instead of propagating delusions of world concern, which in any case is almost impossible to work on since we lack the strength that comes from personal order, clarity, a religious mind, and compassion, since we haven’t put out the fire in our own house. Here is what K says about that:

I see the fire in the world, and the fire inside myself - the misery, the confusion, the idiocy, the pettiness, my arrogance, and all the rest of it. Until - the questioner says - until I radically transform myself it is not possible to put the fire out.” 1st Public Dialogue in Saanen July 1977

"And we have to be serious because the house is burning, not somebody else’s house but our own house is on fire. We have to be very serious, not only to put the fire out, but also to bring about a different kind of house that cannot catch fire at any time, which means living a life of absolute inward order where there is no war, no fear" . 1st Public Talk 10th March 1968 Rome

"K: The house on fire, we think it is out there - it is in here. We have to put our house in order first, sir. " Dialogue at Los Alamos, March 1984

"Compassion" – On the above mentioned post the theme of compassion was introduced by someone with a history of demonstrating it’s absence, perhaps in an effort of joining ranks, forgetting his own advice to another person at the “comparison is a form of violence” thread, who, as recent as few days ago was bashing the virtue of “modesty” (a great virtue btw) as being “hot air” in the same thread.

Krishnmaurti has made it perfectly clear. and this one agrees, there can be no compassion without resolving personal sorrow. Sorrow, which is compassion. Compassion isn’t an emotion, or an act/action someone undertakes. It’s not sentimentality. It’s more than that, and has to do with sorrow. I could post K references supporting this but will urge you towards your own diligence so that it might help a humble learning.

Disclaimer: No responses are being sought. Please read this with some salt and stay away from the kitchen if you can’t handle the heat. This post is simply information for anyone interested.

1 Like

Indeed. K used the outer merely as a starting point to move inwards for investigating the self. Even during the War years and immediately thereafter he was focused on our inner chaos that ultimately results in war and refused to point to a few individuals as the cause of it.

It is much easier to be sucked into the outer and dedicate oneself to fixing problems there.The self also feels good about such activities to reform society, improve the environment etc. By doing so one escapes from self investigation without even realizing it.


Is it for a fact or is it an opinion?

Follow the course of any of his talks and the answer is obvious. But you can also keep the mind argumentative with such questions. No more from me on this.

Therefore, it was said in the OP, a reference helps in weeding out interpretations from facts, the false from the true. A simple question such as the one asked above is sometimes enough to establish non-facts.

To finish what was said in op: One starts by being responsible to one’s thoughts/actions as was discussed in op. The person holds himself accountable for his/her actions and not escape into ideological delusions like world concern or metaphysical speculations on the nature of thought. This is the beginning of right accounting.

The other part of the accounting is to realize that the person has accepted his/her own state of consciousness or mental standards as the test of reality; all outside its orbit tends to become false or non-existent. This is the sign of the original ignorance which is the root of the ego, that it can only think with itself as center as if it were the All, and of that which is not itself accepts only so much as it is mentally disposed to acknowledge or as it is forced to recognize by the shocks of its environment. This myopic view prevents us from drawing the right and full value from life and indeed is the most widespread aliment of humanity.

But if the human can find in himself/herself the strength to hold themselves responsible to their actions, owns up without escaping, then one may find themselves not alone and separate from the ALL, but as a part of an Infinite movement, and that, it is this infinite which we have to know, to be conscious and to fulfill faithfully, is the commencement of true living. This is the second part of the OP.

Such a person having resolved the false accounts and having put them in order has now earned the right to voice his/her concerns on what’s going around him/her as in “the world is burning”. Without this in-‘person’ order any concern for the world is most likely an escape from seeing the fact that one’s own house is burning.

Note: The disclaimer in op is still in effect and applies to this post as well.

The world is on fire through division and conflict. Each country against another country and so on… Inwardly it is the same . One thought against another thought ,one desire against another desire and so on… Conflict is the fire. Understanding conflict that is brought about through thought is to put out the fire inwardly therefore effect the world outwardly.

1 Like

What struck me immensely was the K statement that “thought is fear”. No ‘thinker ‘ being afraid, there is only thought. You could say the same for psychological conflict: thoughts/desires striking up , colliding against one another…creating a ‘minding what happens’ in the ‘minder’…which K said was his secret, he didn’t have one of those.

Yes, that much we “get”, but it doesn’t make much difference because we’re still conflicted; still the problem we know the solution to, but cannot dissolve. We have more knowledge than we can implement, actualize, put to use. We are bodies of knowledge bound by what little we know about what we’re doing.

Is not psychological knowledge the main factor of division and conflict? The Brain is overloaded with psychological knowledge therefore it gradually loses it’s capacity to solve problems.

What is psychological knowledge again please? Is it just what I believe about myself?

I would say not just that but the almost constant movement of thought when it is ‘musing’, reminiscing about the past, worrying about the future, etc basically when it is not necessary…the line between its necessary, appropriate functioning and its unnecessary movement is blurry. When involved in a project that has a beginning middle and end, ‘time’ is involved. But musing about ‘my’ past or my future (“becoming”) IS fear…the line is blurred but if “the thinker IS the thought” then that false duality created by the thinking process ‘must’ come to an end. The ‘thinker’ can’t stop ‘psychological ‘ thought obviously since he is thought itself. There is no method. Only thought itself and its awareness of its own movement and the discernment of when it ‘should’ be operating at all could bring it to a stop, it seems to me. Isn’t this the main issue? The brain’s conditioning, the “stream” that must be “stepped out of”?

Hey! I have been wondering whether what we really mean by this misleading expression - which includes a separation between so called “psychological knowledge” and the other kind of knowledge - would be better served by the word “useful” as opposed to “detrimental” - useful and detrimental with regards to relationship. (Big word at the end of the sentence there, but we’ll ignore it for the moment)

Yes, but only because of our inability to discern the difference between psychological and practical knowledge. If it wasn’t for K’s use of the term “psychological thought”, would we even know there is such a thing? I know only after the fact that my thinking was psychological rather than practical, and only after K informed us that there is such a thing as psychological thought. Had I found out for myself that my thinking was a melange of practical and psychological thought, that insight would have been the end of it. We think we know things that we really don’t know. We’re weighted down and confounded with second-hand knowledge.

You dismiss his discovery because you didn’t discover it first? By experimenting with what was shared by him, you find if it’s so or not so. If you find it’s not so you disregard it but if you find it might be so then if you’re interested you explore it in yourself…and that is first-hand knowledge.

I didn’t “dismiss his discovery”. I accepted it as fact and, although I can’t always tell when my thinking is psychological, I know it often is.

My knowledge of psychological thought is just knowledge - it’s not operational; it’s passive rather than active. I’m constantly reminded of what I’m doing, but that isn’t insight or understanding or comprehension of how the conflicted mind malfunctions. It’s just having some knowledge of what’s going on without seeing and understanding the totality of it.

You don’t know that would have been the “end of it”. He said “the thinker is the thought” for example, second-hand knowledge when you read it, heard it, etc but haven’t you made it ‘your own’ by exploring it in yourself?

The muddled, confused mind does what it can to find clarity and comprehension, and it makes everything it holds and hoards its “own”, including the darkness and confusion that keeps it going. It’s a self-perpetuating process. It can entertain itself with hope and proof of making progress, but it’s just buying time.

Knowledge is consist of experiencing, naming and registering from which thought arises, right?
When you insult me or kick me that experience is named as pain or hurt and is registered in the brain which becomes psychological knowledge. Next time I meet you that psychological knowledge responds as thought and comes between you and me and creates further conflict or division. Is that necessary or useful?

That sounds more like practical knowledge. I need to know who to be wary of, who wants to hurt me.

My understanding of what psychological knowledge is, is any thought that supports or sustains my imaginary self, my chosen identity. Because I lack self-knowledge, I pretend to know things about me that are not true, lest it be obvious how naked, lost, and confused I am.