When the past is present the present is past.
When the past is past the present is present. 
Almost forgot, there is another line.
When the present is present the presence is present.
What does âpresenceâ refer to?
Whoever wrote this would know. If this was a koan, I would say that âpresenceâ refers to that otherness that Krishnamurti mentioned.
Not true. The present is always present, regardless of oneâs inattention to it.
You are technically correct but I think JohnT meant that you (in the present) are living in the past when the past is present.
Thinking is the denial of reality
If this is the truth, then how is this âthinkingâ to end? What does thought say? Will thought say âthere must be awareness of thought, for it to endâ? Does âthoughtâ believe that its movement in the mind is a âdenialâ of anything? Did âthoughtâ make all this up to amuse itself?
1 Like
What thought believes or concludes is irrelevant isnât it? Not referring to âpracticalâ thinking of course.
If thought (self) thinks that it is irrelevant, then why doesnât it cease? Why does it continue on and âdeny realityâ as is being suggested in this topic?
Because what it thinks is irrelevant.
Though likely a rhetorical question, it is a wrong one. The understanding here is that there is enough suffering which has awakened choiceless awareness in the individual and therefore there is this insight that thinking process has to come to an end for choiceless awareness to be. When one hasnât gone through that suffering (âthe dark night of the soulâ as is mentioned elsewhere), one tends to start justifying thinking/thought saying that it could be used intelligently or that there is a selfless aspect to it, whereas the fact of the matter is such use of thought as for practical matters rarely requires a mention, for it happens within the larger field of understanding, which is living itself, in an ascetic mode of dispassion. To put it in different words, such paradoxes of whether or not to use thought resolves by itself in the very mode of living where there is the insight which once has bloomed for awakening awareness.
Years ago Nat when I read this by St. John of the Cross, I wanted It. The Dark Night of the Soul. I figured it was a prerequisite. What is it like? Can you describe it?
Maybe I had it and didnât know what is was?
Does that mean âyouâ are irrelevant?
What do you say, Dan?
Only if you are what you think? Right? Then you are irrelevant.
Iâm seeing this topic differently. Please anyone correct me if you feel I am wrong. Psychological thinking isnât a âdenial of realityâ but a denial of truth. Thought âcreatesâ its own reality from our experiences, memories, opinions, conclusions, etc. Each reality is separate, personal, subjective. It is a conditioning that is in each of us, total. It is a kind of waking dream that we live in, that we are. I saw recently a group of people be hypnotized in a show. It was very convincing. They were instructed to react in different ways to the responses of the audience. One man was told that if the audience found something funny, he was to get up from his chair on the stage and remind us that this was a serious situation, no laughing matter, etc. and it was shocking how incensed he seemed to get whenever the audience did laugh. He jumped out of his seat and ran to the front of the stage and basically threatened us that our laughing was not allowedâŚThe others, there were about seven of them, did different things: two stood up and bowed whenever the audience applauded, etc⌠Is our conditioning a kind of hypnosis? And if so, what can break through it, dissolve it? K. has used the phrase, I believe, the âawakening of intelligenceâ. Bohm described intelligence as a reading between the lines of thoughtâŚThe man at the front of the stage yelling at us to stop our laughing (which made the audience laugh more) was visibly infuriated that we didnât understand the âseriousness of the situationâ which of course only existed in his mind, in his ârealityâ. The âtruthâ was, that he had been hypnotized and was unaware of it.
I donât think Iâll be able to describe it completely without going into details which are personal. I donât have much acquaintance with Christian religious literature and heard about that phrase from the writings of Carl Jung. From my perspective, simply put, with a life which is ego driven and lacking in self knowledge and awareness, will inexorably lead us to situations from where there is no escape into older ways unless something of a nature of crime (to the extent of murder) is committed or even paradoxically suicide. The loss of meaning will stare into the face and life in general, the direction which the soul take from then on is largely unknown and beyond the individual.To survive that and hold oneâs ground will be a sort of miracle. What it demands is to open oneâs eyes fully to every aspect of oneâs existence and do a complete turn around in direction with oneâs life. It seems like a deep decision has been made to that effect. And it appears to me that Kâs teachings or any other spiritual teachings for that matter will have meaning only when one is in that path of oneâs life. Maybe age also influences such happenings, myself not hitting forties yet. In older ages, for an example, the equivalent might be a realization when one is facing literally a death sentence from incurable stage of diseases like cancer.I am not a fan of Carl Jung except for his insights about psychological types of classifying people, but his statement that âwhen self knowledge is willed by fate and is refused by the individual, itâll lead to extreme consequencesâŚâ is a pointer to the dark night of soul event
I think it isâŚhypnosis. Total. So that weâre practically blind to anything going on outside the hypnotic state of the self. What do you say, Nat? Anyone?
Yes the same âdeath sentenceâ that every other living thing faces. Age is a 2-edged sword here, Iâd say. It is easier to sense the fictitious âIâ. Also the rigidity and folly of past conclusions can be seen but there is less energy that is probably necessary to stay clear of thoughtâs âtrapsâ. K. brought the message that we are ânothingâ (not-a-thing) but âthoughtâ is, like the physical body, a âthingâ. A material process.
When Krishnamurti talked about being serious, no one laughed because they were all straining to âgetâ what he was talking about, but that straining is risible.
Were you ever in attendance for any of Kâs talks?
What difference would that make? The videos captured everything.