The other shore may be this shore

You are speaking theoretically Viswa. If I might suggest it, forget the universal mind, the mind of the Buddha, Nagarjuna, etc. Take your own mind.

When you hate another (or feel jealous, envious, hurt, etc), in the moment of hate, there is hate. This is not controversial. I might tell another person that I love them - through gritted teeth - even though it is clear that there is hate going on inside oneself. So the word “love” has no meaning in that moment. What is true, what is factual, is that I hate.

Why can’t we just see this hate going on, and refuse to move away from this actuality? What happens next is irrelevant. The seeing of hate is what is important.


okay, the knowledge of math, geo, cars - we both understand that is technical knowledge. And one is talking strictly of psychological knowledge.

So, when James says (not how the others use the word “knowledge”), “Suffering is knowledge, fear is knowledge, pleasure is knowledge”, that is not something that James has seen, is it? That is an idea for you, for some people. That is what “I” meant about making an idea about a fact. The fact is suffering, but saying that “suffering is knowledge” without having seen it is making an idea about a fact. Sorry, just saying *S Had you actually seen that “suffering is knowledge, fear is knowledge, pleasure is knowledge,” etc. you would be free of suffering, fear, pleasure, get it??

Yes, but the problem remains, knowledge. That one refuses to negate all psychological knowledge at the outset, in the beginning, results in making ideas about facts. You see, any idea about a fact is strictly an intellectual idea.

One agrees with this up to a point. But as we know from Jane Goodall’s work with chimpanzees, there is such a thing as war among certain animals; and we can see more generally that fighting for dominance within different animal groups often leads to real violence and suffering for those animals directly implicated. This is not to suggest, of course, that such violence is anywhere near the scale of human violence.

1 Like

One is aware of suffering in oneself. This awareness (of suffering, pain) does not need to be put into words.

However, K has used the words “contents of consciousness” to communicate something about this suffering, and one uses his words to communicate that this suffering (of which one is aware) is a content in consciousness - a content that one sees in other people too.

What is wrong with this?

What brings you to draw this conclusion? You are using the word “knowledge” while I am using the word “content (of consciousness)”, but these words mean the same thing for me. Does being aware of suffering (a content in consciousness) end suffering? Apparently you say ‘yes’. I say ‘I don’t know’.

What is wrong with saying I don’t know?

1 Like

I see that the distinction between Psychological thought and Technological thought is once again being made. Why is it being made? Why is the distinction deemed important?

There is the idea that useful beliefs about practical matters are helpful for everyday functioning - this seems to be the only reason why we bring this up - as if to say : Thought is not all bad.

The idea is that Psychological thought though is the one to be wary of - and we bring up the example of beliefs that we might hold about other people we interact with, as if this is somehow worse than not useful.

I really am not getting it - what is the essential thing about Psychological thought that creates suffering that sets it apart from Technological thought?

For me its all about mistaking the model for reality, whether my beliefs/models are about cooking, computing or whether they are about my identity or someone else’s identity.


I did not say ‘yes’. All suffering does not end when there is the seeing of one particular content. There is also more to it than just being “aware”.

Nothing is wrong, as long as it is meant, meant as if one’s life depended on it.

You have stated that you haven’t yet to begin in another post. That caught my attention, and so one remembers it. And other posts, you like speculating, etc… (cough)

They do not imply exactly same thing.
The source of any content is always rooted in knowledge. That’s all.

To begin, one must see (the brain must see) that all psychological thought is the result of knowledge from the outset. Unless one sees that such knowledge is faulty, and that faulty knowledge generates psychological thought which can be wrong, there can never be freedom. Unless that is done and done at the beginning, there is never freedom. The brain must see that knowledge is limited … psychological thought (which is generated from knowledge). You may see all of that as the same thing: the contents of the consciousness, but most everyone is stuck in emptying one part, one little fragment at a time. Unfortunately, what I saying is that without having seen that psychological knowledge can never be perfect and is always flawed; this is an endless circular wheel, because in the meantime, one is accumulating more knowledge. The fact is that no one can see that the entire contents of one’s consciousness is limited. It’s too darn complicated. The brain won’t accept that fact. So one begins, and one begins simply - with what one can see, that psychological knowledge is limited, and one drops that. All for now. I need a shower and need to go out, it’s stopped raining…

Douglas, I’m just innocently asking, but to whom is this intended as a reply? Maybe it is directed at another participant? If it is directed at me, I don’t understand the context?

All I am interested in, for the time being, is whether or not what is - whatever presently is - has an opposite. If there is no opposite, then this is something interesting in itself, no?

Hello Charley. Sorry, the quote and message was addressed to James so I hope you don’t mind me butting in.

With respect, why bring the past in here? If we bring the past in, it will impact on the present and distort it. Can we explore this subject leaving all previous posts behind? Of course, we all do this - have an image of someone from their previous posts. Is it possible to put all that aside and start afresh?

1 Like


As has happened before, I’m not sure if we are not getting our wires crossed somewhere? All I’ve been concerned with looking at so far in this thread is something you yourself have already mentioned:

As I understand it, a fact has no opposite; and so any opposite must be a form of imposition extraneous to the fact, and so non-factual.

A fact like suffering is a fact. There is no ‘other shore’ in the moment of suffering, but just the fact we call ‘suffering’ (the word is not the thing).

The fact is free to reveal its whole content if we are able to remain with it without escaping from it. But generally the brain does not do this. Generally the brain finds a way of moving away from the thing we call ‘suffering’. That’s all that is being said.

I actually don’t know if remaining with suffering (by which I mean being aware of suffering, seeing or observing suffering directly) will end suffering. K has said that ‘total contact’ with the thing called ‘sorrow’, ends sorrow (and by ‘total contact’ he means there is absolutely no separation between oneself and sorrow: there is only sorrow).

But what K has said about the ending of suffering is not a present fact for me; it isn’t actual. So I cannot say that it is a fact (that suffering ends by remaining with it completely), even though it sounds reasonable when K talks about it.

As I understand it, if one uses the “ending” of suffering (that K has pointed out) as a means of observing one’s own suffering, then one is not actually observing one’s own suffering. There is a contradiction between the idea that suffering can end, and the suffering itself. So such a contradiction - such an opposite - is not factual. This is all I think I have stated.

You are introducing this topic of thought’s relationship to knowledge, and the limits of knowledge - perhaps because we discussed it on another thread a few weeks ago? - but I don’t see its immediate relevance here (not that it is irrelevant, only that it isn’t the exact topic of the OP).

We can explore the nature of knowledge if you really want to, but for my present purposes I am interested in becoming aware that the present fact has no opposite (the present fact being, for instance, the vague feeling of background unhappiness, cool touch of the breeze on my forehead, the evening light on the unripened corn field, the book on the wicker chair, the sound of the birds preparing for sleep, the sound of the keyboard clacking as I write, the people talking in the room below, etc).

There is a beauty in dropping the ‘what should be’ of a farther shore, and I am not yet finished with exploring this terrain. This may not interest you - I’m not saying it should - but this is all I have been discussing so far. I am not objecting to what you say about knowledge, but this is not what I am looking at this instant.

What I hear you to be saying is that all this seeing, looking, awareness (of what is) is fragmentary, partial, incomplete. You say, for example,

Ok. But I am not denying that the contents of consciousness are limited. I am simply saying that if a content is present (as hurt, as pleasure, as frustration, etc), then that is the fact.

And so unless it is a fact for me that the mind is seeing the whole contents of consciousness this second - this very instant (which it is not) - then it is an idea, and so is extraneous to what presently is. Do you see what I am saying?

If one saw the total limitation of consciousness, then for sure I would call that a total insight. But either that total insight is a fact - and so all the contents of consciousness are completely emptied in that flash (of insight) - or it is an idea that interferes in my observation of what is. Do you see what I am saying?

So I am not objecting to the possibility of total insight - K has talked about insight a lot - I just do not see its immediate relevancy to what has already been said here, or the OP topic, which I take to be the importance of being

My question (about Psy & Tech thought distinction) was directed at anybody who felt they might have some insight into the matter - as I have not yet grasped why it may be important.

As for your question - about the opposite of what is - I managed to miss that completely, sorry. Though I don’t see what would be its opposite (apart from conceptually : that which isn’t )
Can you say why it is exactly (or even vaguely) you are so intrigued by the prospect (that what is has no opposite)? Oups! Sorry you have - I’ll go read that now.

Say I was sitting outside with a pint and a mosquito landed on my nose - why would the idea of no choice or measurement even come up?

Maybe because it has been put there as part of my conditioning (listening to spiritual authorities) and I was trying to put this into practise, via my ideas about meditation and mindfulness. I don’t think any ending of self would occur via this confusion.

I think there has to be some realisation first of what choice and measurement is. And that this realisation must necessarily result in the ending of fear - without that, all action just leads back to more confusion.

In the OP extract K was talking to someone about their desperate desire for the “other shore” (enlightenment, freedom, happiness, selflessness, or what have you). Their very fixation on the ideal, the ‘should be’, the desired state (the “other shore”) is blocking them from being aware of ‘what is’, the actual state of their mind (“this shore”). And K says

meaning that all movement away from “this shore” is actually negating the possibility of realising the “other shore”. The “other shore” has become a standard, a measure, by which I judge or compare “this shore” (the present actuality). And so I am never in direct contact with “this shore” (what one presently is).

To put it differently, what presently is the case (psychologically speaking) requires no opposite.

[We can talk about the distinction between psychological facts and physical facts another time - just to give you a clue of the difference: if I want to grow a vegetable crop, the present fact may be that the ground needs to be tilled. This physical fact of the untilled ground can have a practical opposite if I want to till it to plant seeds. Whereas if I am bored, I can of course turn on the radio or pick up a book, but the boredom itself has no opposite. It just is what it is, in the instant that it is, and one cannot will it to be different in the way that one can prepare soil for seeding.]

So there is no opposite, no goal, no paradise, no perfection, no requirement; but only being aware of whatever one is (until one is not aware). So the near shore is all that matters. This is a kind of revelation to me.

Why does one say this? Why must the awareness of fear (if that is ‘what is’) necessarily result in the ending of fear? Says who? Does fear say this?

Or fear is just what is (if it is)?

Fear is wanting to be seen - why else would it appear in consciousness? But if one has a result in mind, a goal to end fear - a goal being a standard, an idea by which I am measuring fear - then I am not actually in contact with the thing we call “fear”; because I am then merely observing or seeing fear through the prism of ‘what should be’, the standard (which is to ‘end fear’).

In this awareness or seeing of fear

(the opposite direction being away from ‘what is’). So any ideal, measurement, or standard stops one from seeing oneself as one is. Isn’t this so?

*interpolated edit is my own.

Btw, apologies if I changed the text while you were reading it - I didn’t realise I had already ‘published’ my post.

Apologies for the autocorrect mistake in my post - I should have written Charley (not Charlie)

Near/far shores, n-fold paths, samsara/nirvana, conventional/ultimate truths: These are all teaching devices, methods to nudge students towards _____________ (truth, what-is, reality). In Buddhism they are regarded as provisional teachings. The definitive teaching is emptiness, and imo that’s where Krishnamurti speaks from, a deep and K-idiosyncratic realization of emptiness. Unfortunately for us unilluminati, that’s the deepest end of the pool, gurgle gurgle.

What say you, James et al?


no worries re: spelling (Charley is usually a female name, Charlie is typically male)

re: the other shore:

There is no possibility of seeing the falseness of becoming - that any attempt to reach the other side of the shore is an illusion, unless one has awakened intelligence. And the only way to awaken intelligence is to drop psychological knowledge. And that’s why one mentioned psychological knowledge. Otherwise, one is just theorizing… and all theorizing re: this is psychological knowledge, which means that one is going the wrong way - the wrong turn. Because of that theorizing, all theorizing leaves a mark. So no freedom is possible because of the mark left. All theorizing only leads to intellectual understanding (more knowledge), and is meaningless in the end (K).

So, it is only through insight where there is the possibility of the seeing of the falseness of becoming, and it’s intelligence that facilitates insight. And, without insight, there is no mutation. You see, intelligence is the bridge between reality and truth.

Insight itself is not something that empties the content of one’s consciousness. Insight is something else entirely… which instantaneously heals the brain cells (i.e. “the word is not the thing”, “I am the world and the world is me”, etc.) from a distorted manner of seeing.

Emptying the contents of one’s consciousness is done through awareness and attention. It empties the consciousness of one’s personal conditioning: one’s greed, selfishness, violence, anger, sadness… fear… etc.

So, you see, insight and emptying are two entirely different processes (not sure that this is the right word, but). The first (insight) changes thousands of years of genetic distortions. And the second (emptying) clears out one’s personal reactions. Two entirely different things.

Hi Charley - just to let you know that I have some work commitments today so if I don’t immediately reply to people’s posts today it is not due to any lack of interest or indifference.

I will have to keep my remarks brief, but I will attempt to respond again later today

I’m not sure that I accept this distinction is true of K, even though it might well be a distinction that is meaningful in regards to your own experience. I understand emptiness and insight (or emptying and insight) to be synonymous.

Maybe we can explore this more when I am at leisure again?

Hi Rick, I have some work commitments to attend to today, so I don’t have time for a proper reply (I will try to get back to you later) - but just to comment that I think there is a difference between the ultimate ‘non duality’ that is common in Mahayana Buddhism, and the non duality that K is talking about in the OP. For K non duality is actual now, presently, not merely ultimately - which is why he says that any psychological fact has no opposite. Whereas in orthodox Buddhism psychological facts do have an opposite: the ‘what should be’ (the path of deliverance).

2 reasons :

  • because seeing what motive (self/fear) is, denies and eliminates it (self induced delusion that it was).

  • because awareness based on motivation (fear/desire) cannot be choiceless and measureless (no matter how hard I try)

Remember, we were looking at this :

Good luck.

  1. Get your priorities straight. First, Kinfonet. Then: everything else!

  2. I think the ultimate ‘brass ring’ state of being in each tradition (enlightenment, moksha, I am That) carries the flavor of the tradition. Perhaps not the highest highest realization, the kind a handful of people in the history of the Earth have realized, but anything short of that.

  3. I’m interested hearing your take on the notion that Krishnamurti’s “Truth is pathless” and “The first step is the last” and “There is no other shore” and similar anti-becoming views emerge from his deep realization of emptiness, similar to but not identical with sunyata.

Quite right - I am this shore. What I see and what I want (the other shore - or the conceptual opposite of this shore) is this shore.
So there is no other shore really - it is just what I want.
All we have to do is to see that this shore (and the desire for its opposite) is just a projection of my own making (what I am, what desire is, must be seen)

And something that is made up by me (the conditioned self) is also just delusion - based of course on the whole of what is (which is unknown)

What I am saying about the death of the self ( which may already be happening continously anyway - as delusion dies whenever it is not being created) - the death of fear - is that it must occur first, for there to be choicelessness.

There is no way for suffering to leave this shore - this shore is suffering.

1 Like