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.
When the past is present the present is past.
What does “presence” refer to?
Whoever wrote this would know. If this was a koan, I would say that “presence” refers to that otherness that Krishnamurti mentioned.
Not true. The present is always present, regardless of one’s 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 “thinking” to end? What does thought say? Will thought say “there must be awareness of thought, for it to end”? Does ‘thought’ believe that its movement in the mind is a “denial” of anything? Did ‘thought’ make all this up to amuse itself?
What thought believes or concludes is irrelevant isn’t it? Not referring to ‘practical’ thinking of course.
If thought (self) thinks that it is irrelevant, then why doesn’t it cease? Why does it continue on and “deny reality” 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 hasn’t gone through that suffering (‘the dark night of the soul’ 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 didn’t know what is was?
Does that mean ‘you’ are irrelevant?
What do you say, Dan?
Only if you are what you think? Right? Then you are irrelevant.
I’m seeing this topic differently. Please anyone correct me if you feel I am wrong. Psychological thinking isn’t a “denial of reality” but a denial of truth. Thought ‘creates’ 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 allowed…The 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 ‘awakening of intelligence’. Bohm described intelligence as a reading between the lines of thought…The 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 didn’t understand the ‘seriousness of the situation’ which of course only existed in his mind, in his ‘reality’. The ‘truth’ was, that he had been hypnotized and was unaware of it.
I don’t think I’ll be able to describe it completely without going into details which are personal. I don’t 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 one’s ground will be a sort of miracle. What it demands is to open one’s eyes fully to every aspect of one’s existence and do a complete turn around in direction with one’s life. It seems like a deep decision has been made to that effect. And it appears to me that K’s teachings or any other spiritual teachings for that matter will have meaning only when one is in that path of one’s 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 ‘when self knowledge is willed by fate and is refused by the individual, it’ll lead to extreme consequences…’ is a pointer to the dark night of soul event
I think it is…hypnosis. Total. So that we’re practically blind to anything going on outside the hypnotic state of the self. What do you say, Nat? Anyone?
Yes the same “death sentence” that every other living thing faces. Age is a 2-edged sword here, I’d say. It is easier to sense the fictitious ‘I’. Also the rigidity and folly of past conclusions can be seen but there is less energy that is probably necessary to stay clear of thought’s ‘traps’. K. brought the message that we are “nothing” (not-a-thing) but ‘thought’ is, like the physical body, a ‘thing’. A material process.
When Krishnamurti talked about being serious, no one laughed because they were all straining to “get” what he was talking about, but that straining is risible.
Were you ever in attendance for any of K’s talks?
What difference would that make? The videos captured everything.