The path that leads home
Is unknown by those who fled
And floundered
Until they found their way
Or died
Before they knew they were lost
1 Like
When i read this poem it remembers me of a story K once told about a man who left his home in search for the truth.
He went in different directions (i.e. innumerable paths that men have invented) and after many years he came back home and the moment he entered the house, there it was : the truth.
You could argue that he wouldnât have come upon it if he hadnât done what he had been doing, but that would be rather a cunning way to explain it.
I hope you all will grasp this.
Dixit K.
For me, Nature is both the path that leads home and home itself.
I do not understand what you are trying to say. Could you tell more about?
Inquiry spoke of the path that leads home. I thought about that and realized that the closest thing to a path leading home for me is Nature, by which I mean something like the underlying set of patterns that make the universe what it is. Then I realized that Nature was not only the path, but the destination too. I wonder if this is similar to Krishnamurtiâs: The first step is the last?
Yes, and i think of yet another powerful statement of K : if man loses his contact with nature, he loses his contact with mankind.
Briefly,(alas, we have to be concise on Kinfonet, i suppose) as I can see he meant that as long as we look at nature with our intellect (with all the images we have about it) there can not be any contact at all.
Simply put : the word tree is not the tree.
I often ask myself : why is it so difficult to understand this fact? Why do we resist?
And again i find an answer in a saying of K:
When there is resistance it shows you that you are still conditioned.
Yes, I know , each of these statements are worth its while to be scrutinised and not to be taken for granted.
I hope i didnât dwell off the subject.
When there is any subjective reaction, positive or negative, conditioning is present, and only when there is no subjective reaction is conditioning absent? (Which is kind of like saying: Only when there is no egoic self present is conditioning absent.)
Let me add that our Uncle Alfred North Whitehead (of process philosophy) maintained that every present moment is grounded in / based on all past moments, but also has an element of genuine newness: Everything we think-feel-do is both conditioned and new.
It might be interesting to re-consider the idea that resistance indicates that i am still conditioned.
First of all: is it merely an idea (i.e. a play of words which is the original meaning of the word)
This might be very important because there is always a danger that we get caught in words.
Or is it a fact? Who will tell except oneself?
And why fuzz about it? Being only words.
We are our conditioning to a large extent, right? Wholly, maybe. Being it might make it hard to see.
I donât know, but it seems to me that what would bring an end to the limitation of duality (choosing/believing), is the brainâs awakening to the fact that the condition is sustained by the brainâs belief that is not chosen.
In other words, if I believe that the disorder of humanity is just the way thing are, I can never be free until I see it is I, the believer, that is the cause of the disorder.
To put it simply, when the brain awakens to what it is doing every moment, it ceases to be what it has been for millenia.
I understand the argument, but itâs largely theory for me. Hereâs what arose for me:
If the human brain has been a certain way for millennia, that way probably raised the genetic fitness of the species, and unless it begins to lower the fitness or something more fit appears, why would evolution scrap it or replace it? I donât think we should assume that an awakened brain is definitely more genetically fit than our unawakened brain. In other words, awakening might forever remain an individual phenomenon rather than a species-wide evolutionary one.
If weâre honest, we wonât presume to know or even speculate as to what a brain relieved of its confusion may be.
In other words, awakening might forever remain an individual phenomenon rather than a species-wide evolutionary one.
Even that would be better than the status quo.
True.
Agreed. And who knows, maybe the 100th Monkey got it right, maybe all it takes is a tiny minority who are awakened to tip the Earth towards harmony with nature?
Will you be the one?
Things would be different if we felt our thoughts and actions had power in the world. Powerless is how we feel, most of us anyway, like cogs in the machine. But maybe thatâs wrong? Maybe each and every person has it in them to be the 100th monkey.
Isn´t this exactly what made us a human being? This possibility? But ⌠hope is lurking around the corner and we have to be carefull not to get lost in itâŚ
Right, there is a big difference between being open to something and hoping for something.
Yes, but what does it mean âto be openâ?
Is this merely an expression to say ⌠what exactly? Or do i put unduly weight upon it?
Words can be tricky. Would you mind to explain " to be open"?
I am âopen to being the 100th monkeyâ means I allow for the possibility of it. If I âhope to be the 100th monkeyâ I am liable to skew my interpretation of whatâs really going on to fulfill my hope.
1 Like