What was meant by this? What was K. pointing at? He has said that the death of the physical body was of little importance…I forget the the word he used, “trivial”? So why is it important to “die” to oneself? Is there a universal significance to our “stepping out of the stream”? Why? Is it of significance on a universal scale? Having to do with ‘awareness’?
Is the urgency implied here to do only with the deteriorating human condition here or more than that?..
Confusion stems from delusion.
If I know this, then I am confused by that.
Happy Holidays to one and all.
Well, there is no reference so can’t really verify what he was saying, and it’s very easy to fudge a bit here and bit there to suit our own beliefs, which many do, but this one tries to avoid.
He may be speaking about his own attitude, which in itself can be a subject of exploration and debate if we look at facts…but putting aside any attempt to emulate, parrot, or interpret K, perhaps one can look at the underlying premise of the use of the word trivial along with the following :
When there is a chance of questions being formulated with leading suggestions, by leading is meant an already formulated premise and belief that is disguised or coated as a question but is merely an attempt to put forth one’s belief, it is imperative we have to separate beliefs from facts.
In context one has then to point out that death of the physical body is of supreme importance to mankind in general, minus exceptions. It is this fear of death that prompts man/and woman to go round and round in metaphysical inquiries/speculations (and other remedies) trying to find a solution to this universal fear with it’s many expressions both gross and subtle.
One such comforting idea is the speculation of the particular/individual being of equal magnitude as the universal, …which is not only incorrect factually (contradicts our own experience) but perhaps amusing, and deserves a good laugh…when we compare the magnitude of creation. But fear as they say leads to all kinds of ideas…
This post should be read with a grain of salt. If it is of some use to this discussion then good, otherwise it can be disregarded easily.
I have a conditioned mind. This mind is what I am following. My awareness is conditioned to think the way I live, operate, function, etc., is appropriate. Even my way of thinking, how I deal with ideas and situations, is conditioned. This way of thinking will respond to everything, even consider questions raised, by following a line of conditioned thinking, even be able to find wise answers which seem suitable.
This is my mind, and yours, everyone’s. I think about this, within a fragmented view of separate, individual minds, and the whole, is seen as some ideal in the future, depending upon these separate minds. But the separate mind with its fragmented way of thinking can not realise the whole. This conditioned mind keeps talking about the whole, preparing and programming for the whole, giving people a scheme to work for the whole, offering opportunities to talk about it, or not, but cannot see its own condition is the mess.
Well described, this is exactly what you are doing, as anyone can verify looking at the evidence. Now the small matter of getting off the hamster wheel and sinning no more? Taking a break might help imho.
It is not as if no one has talked about it. Meditate, carefully observing the restless, unsettled, mind, and the movement of thought. But no, we like to believe there is the impossible, what I can’t do, because then there is what is possible, and we already know what this is and it offers a way out.
Then stop talking and taking the way out.
Think about it. What is such a command really saying about the mind? It doesn’t carefully read what is being said in the whole, but just picks on something it thinks it knows, and unfortunately misses the point. It doesn’t see its own way of thinking is what it uses to escape, and therein is stuck…
Think about it. Going round and round like a hamster almost everyday, laying droppings of self-contradictions, thinking they are “nuggets of points”, which in reality are nothing but scripted undigested babble if examined closely, surely indicates a neurotic escape from personal aliments, whatever they may be. When called to attention by a suggestion, such a neurotic mind immediately gets reactive and calls the suggestion a command, proving how it is stuck.
Sir, I am talking about the mind. Please read this without the personal connotations. Looking at something and talking about is not a proof. The preference for proof is an avoidance from the straightforward observation. Such as the personal, which is also an avoidance. The human condition is an ailment, not limited by the personal.
People come to a blog or forum, about the Krishnamurti Teachings, and yet don’t seem to see their own personal, individual way of thinking, is in opposition to looking directly at the mind, and see there is in fact, for them, and you and me, the conditioning we all have psychologically. We don’t see the house is on fire. We have to find a different way of sharing this serious communication and not expect others to follow along in some kind of socially entertaining fashion.
Sir, the world isn’t yet empty of people who make statements based on evidence and not simply emotion, as the majority, albeit the numbers are low.
The mind is undeniably simply a part of the personal, and the “human condition” by definition IS the personal! The “avoidance” is in labeling the personal as universal because it’s too close for comfort. This avoidance is indicative of a ‘person; incapable of a “straightforward observation” of the ‘personal’, and seeing their house is on fire. Their ‘personal house, not anyone else’s house.
Therefore the moral is, and I think I mentioned this yesterday to that other person, you know the one who keeps reacting defensively but accuses others (Howard), scripts won’t help. Trading scripts isn’t inquiring, nor is coming to the forum every day and in some kind of socially entertaining fashion.laying down scripted, what you think are nuggets of wisdom, as if you have this down, you don’t!, as is evident. As K has suggested, when you come to an inquiry come with questions (not scripted "points), not leading questions but genuine ones, and if someone says something that you don’t like then inquire into it. Asking, not reacting.
BTW i think i am reaching the end of my rope here so it’s best to stop any further exchanges at this time. Please feel free to carry on your ‘thing’ with others as you seem to be doing.
The evidence is misleading.
The personal is obviously a small part of the whole human condition, and it amazes me that anyone thinks it is what they say that another needs to examine. The communication is the listening and learning together, in a free flow of communication, not the examination, nor the explanations, and not the analysis.
Yes, what you say about “communication” is another one of the scripts you are known (evidence) to use, after it is shown your examinations, explanations, and analysis seem to fall short of truth. Now take a moment and see if you can identify the self-contradiction in what you say about communication, you will see it has about as much truth in it as horns on a hare. I could do it for you, but i have already done enough.
Re personal /human condition :- Yes, the obvious straight jacket will prevent seeing. Again, we aren’t the custodians of the universe/human species as much we would like to be, or think we are, so getting off the horse will be a beginning to an inquiry on how your house is on fire. Your house… the straight jacket, you know what i mean. If ever interested to pursue this particular inquiry, let me know but at this time i need a break. Go ahead and have your last word if you got that itch.
‘The house is on fire’ does not mean you as a person, it means humanity, it is humanity that is at the brink of destruction because that’s what the human brain has been doing century after century. In ‘The future of humanity’ Krishnamurti established the difference between brain and mind and the importance of the action triggered by compassion as opposed to the action that comes out of illusion whether you call it good or bad. The transformation of the quality of the action must take place at the beginning not at the end… and the book explains it clearly.
Oneself is the source of all conflict. We may put the blame for the world’s disorder elsewhere, but essentially it is the responsibility of just one person, which is oneself, to put right that which is wrong across the whole spectrum of human existence, to extinguish those fires that flare up so quickly as anger, frustration and desire for power. The house on fire is my house, my psyche, my ego. It doesn’t have to die; it is already dead. Therefore the belief that one has to do something about it, to take action to put right what is wrong, is what keeps the flames alive. Because then we all argue about what is this right action.
And as Jess points out, there must be this quality of Compassion that is not of the self but other. As I understand it, real Compassion is ‘blocked’ by the presence of self. Is that one of the reasons why K called the self “evil”?
And Paul is saying as I hear it is that all efforts to attain this Compassion only prolong and strengthen the self-image itself.
Compassion is just an idea or an ideal, same thing. We don’t know anything about it except for what other people have said and for what we ourselves may have imagined. So what do we know about, with any certainty and finality, in regard to ourselves? It’s just more ideas, isn’t it? And those ideas have come about as a result of past experiences, our past mistakes as well as our past achievements, which we have held on to in memory. Without those ideas we don’t exist at all as a psychological entity. Yet all those ideas are but the ghosts and shadows of a former life. So, what are we now as we sit and talk to one another? Are we speaking to one another as voices from the past, as dead entities? Or is there something else going on which isn’t tied to yesterday?