← Back to Kinfonet

Thoughts on Hope

Recently, I realized that if I can’t hope to be relieved of my burden, I can’t carry it. The whole point of carrying hope is to reach the drop-off. Mission accomplished. Job well done. Point well taken.

Hope is necessary to accomplish something that requries diligence and endurance, and the objects of hope are always changing because hopes are constantly ending in success or failure, and springing up again. We hope for many things, some of which our persistence will bring to fruition, and some of which will bring sorrow, disappointment, calamity.

It seems we can’t live without hope, but what happens when we hope for what - when looked at without hope - is a fantasy? That is to say, unless hope repairs to its place, it distorts perception, making it possible to hope for the impossible. One can be chronically, helplessly hopeful, wearing rose colored glasses that enable one to see what isn’t there, and what likely never will be.

This has nothing to do with what K pointed out. You’re talking about the future, wanting a particular outcome, etc, etc. Understanding yourself, your thoughts in the present is much more to the point of what K pointed out. Do us all a favor and read what K had to say about something, anything before you post something so remotely unconnected to what K pointed out.

Why not research what K had to say about hope?

1 Like

This has nothing to do with what K pointed out.

I think it has everything to do with what Krishnamurti talked about. Self-knowledge doesn’t come from K’s teaching - it comes from awareness of and interest in what the mind is doing.

1 Like

I think you didn’t read @Inquiry’s post very carefully. Not that such a flippant reply is warranted under any circumstance.

He is not advocating hope - on the contrary:

This is very honest and and a demonstrates a real “understanding of a thought” working as far as I can tell.

‘Hope’ is a symptom of our psychological disease of ‘becoming’?

No. Hope is necessary. We can’t get anything done without it. But when we propose a project or something we hope to bring about, we have to look at it without hope, because an unbiased, neutral assesment may reveal it to be impracticable or impossible.

But we’re not talking here of some “project”. We’re talking about being “free from the known”. What has “hope” got to do with that, except to create an image of what that ‘freedom’ is …and then ‘hope’ that somehow you’ll attain it? Hope is time. It has no place here. Hope is for the practical, not the psychological. In the psychological, hope, is poison.

1 Like

Thought is a problem solving mechanism – it works to bring about solution based on “hope”. We are all thinking all the time, no? So unless you are no longer caught in the network of thought, your “freedom from the known” is just another hope.

That is the conundrum as far as I can tell. The verbal understanding of the workings of thought do not result in its ending. In which case, hope has been refashioned as "freedom from the known.

Krishnamurti has said that you have to feel it in your very cells – the urgency of change and all that - but sincerity and understanding don’t seem to be what he is referring to, at least in my experience. Your mileage may vary.

??..

Sorry, @DanMcD a failed attempt at humor image .

I just meant that I cant speak for another, only for myself. And me, I am clueless as to the true nature of non-static reality, of the living present – and no amount of understanding that it is not a question of “I” understanding or experiencing changes that fact.

Which brings us back to @Inquiry’s type of futile “hope” - in this case that the hope that I can ever realize what K is talking about is indeed fantasy - it ain’t gonna happen, at least not thru understanding. Of course, it is at this point K would say, “Stay there”.

What does stay there mean? Really mean, not just words of explanation. That is worth going into.

In the psychological, hope, is poison.

This is my point. When you hope for what can’t be attained or achieved, you will carry that hope to the grave, or realize the folly of it.

Complete nonsense. This is a K forum. Let’s stick with what he pointed out and not make up things we think are real. We don’t have to agree or disagree with K but we should at least try to understand what he has pointed out. Research what K said about hope. I’m not going to do it for you.

1 Like

I did read it carefully and if you read what he has said after that you will see that he is pushing hope as necessary. Next time you try to correct someone make sure you know what you’re talking about. My reply wasn’t flippant it was accurate. Which is always warranted.

Hope is becoming.

Or in K’s words: “I am this, I will be that.” Becoming.

Only the self claims: “I need hope to go on.” So - end…

The self is the problem. Not thought.

1 Like

It would probably be worthwhile to untangle the question a little:

Two qualities of hope are being referred to. One is hope for tangible or realizable things, things that can be achieved in practice. Here, it is said, hope is necessary. This can be questioned but this is what is being proposed, that hope is necessary in practical affairs.

Secondly, it is being said (and no disagreement has been expressed with this so far as I can see) that hope for self-improvement, hope for freedom from the burden of the known, hope for that which is impossible to attain through effort, all that kind of hope, which Patricia neatly sums up as ‘becoming,’ simply adds one more burden to that which is already being carried.

As there is agreement on the second contention, that ‘becoming’ and the hope that feeds it is without worth, let us look at the first contention, that hope in practical affairs is necessary and therefore of worth. But to do that we should look at the mechanism of hope. What is its function in practical affairs? What does it serve?

I recently entered a novel I have written to a competition. I hoped it would reach the long list. Unfortunately it did not. But was my hope necessary? It certainly did not change the outcome. ‘Hoping’ did not influence the selection. But the hope was there at the beginning. There exists a phrase, “Blind hope.” My hope was not blind however. I had worked hard on my novel and estimated that it was good enough to stand a chance. A calculation was involved but the outcome was uncertain.

But this is the same with most things. When you plant a seed you make a calculation. You do the work. Hope, in this blunted form, is part of that. If you did not hope you would not plant. Whenever the outcome of an effort is uncertain, hope is involved to some extent.

There is both uncertainty in outcome and anxiety about that uncertainty. This is natural. What seems unnecessary however is the belief that hope can move things, change the outcome etc. And I certainly note that impulse occurring in me. The belief in the magical qualities of hope (and belief) serves to dampen down anxiety arising from uncertain outcomes. Hope serves to still the mind. It is an analgesic, similar to religion. And the price one pays for it is the loss of clarity.

Magical hope extends in all fields and in all directions, including becoming. I ‘hope’ I will be better in the future is not far different that hoping to win the lottery. All the energy put into magical hope (including ‘positive thinking,’ prayer, supplication and ‘asking the universe’) simply super-activated desire and leads to its twin, disappointment.

Good point. Would you say that everything in the psychological is poison?

Is it possible to live - in the practical world - without the self?

Self is intimately related to thought however. Can’t have ‘self’ without thought, right?

What about having thought without “self”?

Although, your novel was a practical matter, was it for a practical purpose to seek food, clothing and shelter? Are you writing for a living? Or was your novel for meeting a psychological need, “all that kind of hope, which Patricia neatly sums up as ‘becoming’”?