In that case, how do we discover anything new? Take for example science, where we discover new things which we didn’t know before.
[Thought] is a limited tool which tries to go beyond its limitations through the quantity and variety of its endeavours. But it is always carrying a quality of limitation in its wake. And that which is limited is extremely dangerous in the wrong place.
We said only that thought is dangerous in the wrong place. Science is always finding new ways to improve the world in which we live; and yet at the same time science is developing better ways to kill and control people. Human beings can always invent new things. Psychologically, however, we are not at all interested in the new. We are concerned only with the continued modification of the old. That is why so many of our inventions and innovations arise from the need to protect ourselves. Technologically, over the last one hundred years, we have changed beyond recognition; psychologically, however, we have changed very little over the last ten thousand years.
Is it possible to discover a way of living that is free from all psychological limitation? Thought must stay away from this question. Then a new movement in living has already begun.
Krishnamurti said this, and all those who take K’s teaching seriously don’t doubt that he spoke from his experience. But when someone else echos K’s words, they don’t ring true.
Then remove altogether the comparison. Not the comparison of K and of someone else, but the comparison which says, ‘I am serious about the teachings.’ If you were serious about the teachings, you wouldn’t live the way you do. You wouldn’t tolerate fear for one second. Because the teachings say time is your only enemy; and I say exactly the same thing. Unfortunately, one has to share the same words just as we have to share the same air and water and all the rest of this earth. Of course it sounds the same. What on earth do you expect? And if you don’t listen to K then you won’t listen to this either. So it makes very little difference.
I expect anyone who fully comprehends what K was saying to speak in their own words. If they can’t find their own words, I would expect them to find an authentic way - their own way - of conveying their understanding.
If you were serious about the teachings, you wouldn’t live the way you do.
That’s not true. Anyone can be serious about the teachings because they’re just teachings. Whether one awakens to what the teachings point to is what matters.
Sorry, but I have no such expectations on myself or on anyone else. I said the programme destroys itself. Where did K say this? How much authenticity do you require?
A right question has no answer, because it needs no answer.
We are not concerned with what you should or should not do; that is not the problem. We are concerned with understanding the mind; and in understanding there is no condemnation, no demand for a pattern of action. You are merely observing; and observation is denied when you concern yourself with a pattern of action, or merely explain the inevitability of a slavish life. What matters is to observe your own mind without judgment - just to look at it, to watch it, to be conscious of the fact that your mind is a slave, and no more; because that very perception releases energy, and it is this energy that is going to destroy the slavishness of the mind. But if you merely ask, ‘How am I to be free from my slavery to routine, from my fear and boredom in everyday existence?’, you will never release this energy. We are concerned only with perceiving what is; and it is the perception of what is that releases the creative fire. You cannot perceive if you do not ask the right question - and a right question has no answer, because it needs no answer. It is wrong questions that invariably have answers. The urgency behind the right question, the very instance of it, brings about perception. The perceiving mind is living, moving, full of energy, and only such a mind can understand what truth is.
Kudos…
Do you think we are all dealing with different problems, different ways of living, different and more subtle layers of existence? We are not. Our brains are the same brains, whether from next door or from the other side of the world, whether old or young, whether senile or juvenile. Our brains are heavily programmed to be aware of and to react to any threat. There is some degree of intelligence in this programme. But living for the protection of something which the programme itself has invented has no intelligence at all. It is a mechanical way of living. And the only way to change all this is to look at the mechanics of it with a mind that… - well, you tell me - what kind of a mind does it require?
I think that might be true, but I am not sure. As with pretty much all the big existential questions, I’m agnostic, though I often lean one way or the other (and keep it to myself). That’s frustrating for you, right? You would rather that I say Yes or No instead of my usual Maybe.
Is it possible that this obsession of yours is blocking your own consideration of the potentially remarkable phenomenon being discussed? Which would be a shame, as the more minds earnestly tackling this the better.
1 Like
There is nothing wrong with saying, ‘Maybe.’ When both the Yes and the No sound theoretical then Maybe is the logical option. But anything true repeated becomes itself theoretical over time. Maybe it is time for a new response.
Theoretical and habitual, yes. I’m quite aware of the danger (to ‘truth’) that lies in repetition.
What is the potentially remarkable phenomenon being discussed?
As a theory, yes. But a theoretical danger is forever postponed. Real danger means immediate action.
I do tend to have a kind of clinical distance to the things I explore, including my self. I regard them as interesting phenomena to be studied, understood, and experienced.
Meditation? The description however belies the described. That is the remarkable part.
An action that does not follow on from an idea cannot obviously be put into words.
Isn’t meditation simply seeing things as they are?
Simplicity - in the sense of being nothing rather than minimalism - is unfathomable. Not simple at all.
Ditto meditation.
1 Like
Not sure I understand, try again?