Ukraine

You can’t step out of something until you realise you are in it. And this is what we have been talking about all the way through this discussion. Although we may appear to be concerned about the war in Ukraine, this concern is extremely superficial; and the further away from it we are, geographically, the more diffuse and vague is our concern. Lacking any answers to this international political crisis we then turn inward to consider our own personal responsibility; but this is also a superficial concern. And then we go back to K because we are lost. It all seems so silly. To be concerned means to see with intensive force just one thing about ourselves, but we are always going off into descriptions and explanations before we have even started to look.

I said right at the start that I am afraid - this is my reaction to the war. I am not interested in whether it is intelligent or stupid, whether it is response or reaction, whether it is this or that. I am afraid. And this feeling is also there when I talk to you, meet you anew or for the umpteenth time, discuss with you or ignore you. This is the stream which is surely to God also your stream. You can give it a thousand names, but essentially, deeply, we are afraid of one another, whether it is the invading army or the noisy, inconsiderate neighbour next door.

To hide behind a pseudonym is also about fear; there is nothing clever or sophisticated about it. Until we face these simple, everyday facts, whatever we do, wherever we go, we shall take this war with us into the next generation and the generation after that.

I presume that our confusion stems from the powerful feeling that we (me) are a separate entity from the stream.

The stream of thought and experience that I think is mine, produced by or happening to me, actually arises from an interminable history of causes and conditions and is manifest in all of us.
And what we call ourself, this feeling of being a center experiencing the stream, is just another part of of the stream.

The use of the word “stepping out” also causes confusion, as there is nothing that steps out. There is just insight and freedom - which, in my opinion, may also be considered part of the stream. (The stream changes over time - our evolutionary psychology has not stopped)

I think this is one of those situations in which Krishnamurti takes a word with which (at least we think) we are familiar, and then changes its meaning in order to communicate something new. Ordinarily speaking, there is, as you say, no observation without an observer - just as there is no seeing without an eye, or hearing without an ear.

But the way Krishnamurti uses the word, the ‘observer’ is always part of thought, a co-creation of the thought process. So that when the ‘observer’ looks at anger, fear, hurt, etc, it is really just one aspect of thought (as the ‘me’) looking at another aspect of thought (which has also created anger, fear, hurt). So the ‘me’ is its qualities (anger, fear, hurt): the ‘observer’ is the observed. The same thought process that has created the ‘observer’ is also the thought process appearing as anger, hurt. So it is a mistake to separate the two: they are a conjoint (single) process.

Observing without the observer, on the other hand, is a state of observation without the past (thought) intruding; an observation without the ‘me’. This doesn’t make sense conventionally (in the way we employ these words), but it doesn’t mean that what is being pointed to (a state of observation without a self-centre) is invalid.

[There are precedents for this outside the K-world. There is no need to go into it deeply here but (as you may know) in Buddhism there were Buddhists who broke away from traditional and conventional (Abhidharma) views on the subject-object relationship; which is why - in Dzogchen and Mahamudra for instance - they evolved a non-dualistic language to talk about certain aspects of mind, awareness, open presence, etc - which make no sense from the conventional subject/object point of view.]

1 Like

Although Krishnamurti is quite emphatic (in the dialogue Charley shared) that insight and intelligence are ‘outside’ the stream. It was Rahula who was asserting that wisdom was ‘inside’ the stream - but K rejected that.

1 Like

I suppose that the reason we cannot say that insight is part of the stream, is because insight is an understanding of the stream?

My enquiry into suffering (suffering/experience which is the stream) necessitates that I be free from suffering. So we cannot say that insight is part of suffering.

So the stream experiences the stream?

Yes: A statement doesn’t have to make sense for it to illuminate.

Insight reveals that the source of psychological suffering is the presence in the mind of thoughts and images. ‘Freedom’ doesn’t lie in rejecting/approving them but in their not being ‘fed’. The metaphor that comes to me of the mind is that of a calm body of water that thoughts/images ‘fall’ into. The ripples are the disturbance that fades on its own unless the water is further ‘roiled’.

2 Likes

The stream is the human experience. The self is a part of human experience. The feeling that the self is experiencing the experience is part of the human experience.

Important (?) subtlety here : K is emphatic that insight is not coming from inside the stream - I don’t think he ever states that it comes from outside.

Its difficult having an authority that we cannot question - K also calls the consciousness that is free of the stream an entity - a special unique entity (whereas the illusion of self in the stream is not) - very confusing.

The insight comes from our inquiry into suffering, it is the self that suffers, the self is part of the stream (?) I suppose insight is not from the past, thus not of the stream?

The implication here is that what is seen (the memory of the insight) necessarily becomes part of the stream - although K seems to refute this too in the dialogue.
Are Humans that reach their potential (via freedom of intelligence) still part of humanity?

‘Stepping out of the stream’ is perhaps the blossoming of the human being? The new woman / man. The ending of conflict within and without. Technologically the brain has exhibited its seeming unlimited brilliance. Psychologically it seems closer to the chimpanzee.

2 Likes

Dear Dan,

Oh no, please do not insult the chimps! :grinning:
Psychologically, more like sharks… you see, when Charley was still making images, but using one of the siddhis, there was the seeing within others, but was still interpreting what was seen, and what was seen were all horrible sea monsters, usually sharks !!

Yes, it’s interesting. In the discussion with Rahula K attempts an answer to this question several times over:

‘A’ is of that stream, ‘A’ is suffering, ‘A’ says, ‘Why?… Why is there suffering?’ In the very enquiry of it - the enquiry depends on your capacity to put aside interpretation, not escape and all the rest of it - in the very enquiry into the nature of suffering and the cause of it, and the effect of it and so on, in that very enquiry is insight, comes insight. Insight isn’t in the stream.….

‘A’ is suffering…. ‘A’ begins to enquire… in his enquiry he realises enquiry can only exist when there’s complete freedom from all escapes, suppression and all the rest of it…. So in that moment of enquiry there is insight, when he doesn’t escape, when he doesn’t suppress, when he doesn’t rationalise or seek the cause of suffering, in that very moment of examining, is insight….

'A’ is of that stream… And as he lives he realises what he’s going through. Right? In that realisation he says, ‘I’m suffering.’ Then he begins to enquire into the whole nature of suffering, and ends that suffering. I’m taking one aspect of this stream. Ends that suffering. And he is out of that stream. That entity is really unique, who is out of that stream….

The moment ‘A’ realises that he’s suffering, and doesn’t escape from that suffering - enquires, explores without any motive and so on, so on into the nature of suffering, and has an insight into the whole structure of suffering, that very insight ends that suffering.….

That stream has manifested itself in ‘A’. ‘A’ living, realises he’s suffering, he doesn’t escape from it, because he wants to know the whole nature of it, the nature and the structure and what is behind suffering. So he examines it, both logically, sanely and also non-verbally. Looks into it. And the very looking into it is the insight. It’s not of the stream, the looking into the suffering….

Why is there suffering? In the very enquiry of it - the enquiry depends on your capacity to put aside interpretation, not escape and all the rest of it - in the very enquiry into the nature of suffering and the cause of it, and the effect of it and so on, in that very enquiry is insight, comes insight. Insight isn’t in the stream….

N: Where does it come from, insight, then?

K: I’m telling you.

N: From enquiry.

K: From the freedom to enquire….

‘A’ is part of that stream, ‘A’ is the manifestation of that stream, a wave of that stream, or whatever you like to call it. Now ‘A’ is going through agony. ‘A’ examines it. And the examination is very important, because if he escapes it is not examination, not exploration. If he suppresses, it’s not. So he realises - please follow this step by step - that as long as he’s not free from the blockages that prevent exploration, and therefore he puts them aside, he’s free to enquire. And in that freedom is insight….

‘A’ is a manifestation of that stream. ‘A’ is suffering. ‘A’ says, ‘Why am I suffering?’ Studies Buddhism, studies Hinduism, studies Christianity, and says, ‘For God’s sake, that’s words - out. I’m going to find out myself.’ And he begins to enquire. And he realises he can only explore if he’s free to look. Right? Free from fear, free from reward and punishment, free from any kind of motive, otherwise he can’t enquire. The moment he’s in that state of examination, there is insight.

So, in a moment of true enquiry (free from “blockages”, “interpretation”, “escape”, “motives”, etc), K is saying there can be insight.

Yes. That human being - who is no longer part of the stream (of suffering, etc) - would be unique.

The Whole Movement of Life is Learning
Violence and nihilism are spreading throughout the world. The more highly organized society is, the more possibility there is of violence; and the sense of non-co-operation, which is nihilism, must be on the increase. Law cannot solve this problem for we all depend on each other. If one highly specialized group strikes against another and the strike is legal, there is no way out of this disorder. The tyrannical states have forbidden strikes, but that is not the way either. Each specialized segment of the community is opposing another specialized group; and the poor, seeing affluence, naturally want part of it. So there is tremendous struggle going on within society, leading to violence in every form. Law and police order cannot bring peace to the world, and we must have peace to survive at all. Peace is not established by the politicians; theirs is only a peace between two conflicts. Peace is in the relationship of human beings whether they are black, white or pink, communist or Catholic, and so on. The relationship is not at the intellectual level. A relationship at that level is no relationship at all. relationship is on the human level of understanding and affection. This is denied when action conforms or adjusts to an image made by the intellect. Ideas are far more important to us than the human relationship of affection with its consideration.

Why have formulas become so important? Is it because we do not know how to act, and so escape into ideas, into formulas with which we hope to solve the problems? To kill an animal or a human being is the ultimate act of violence. We all recognize this deep down in our hearts, but yet find reasons, logical and illogical, why we should kill. So killing becomes the traditional way of dealing with problems that arise from living. Killing is not with the bayonet or with the bomb only, but also with the attitudes, the opinions, the judgements and the gestures that one uses to destroy others. We are taught to hate from childhood: a parent tells his children, ‘Don’t see so-and-so, he’s not a nice man’, or ‘She’s not one of us’, and so the seed of hate is sown. The misery of it all is the importance given to prejudice, to established values and to dangerous things like nationalism and separate Gods to which one has become accustomed. The collecting of garbage and the representation of God are specialized functions that people create as monopolies; and so these very people become the source of violence.

Most of us know all these things, some of us intellectually and others with emotional concern, but humanity seems to be unable to start anew, to look at all these problems with fresh eyes. Those who revolt against the past fall into another trap. This has been the historical process; the new gods become the old gods overnight.

Observing all this unemotionally, and certainly not intellectually, we see that action that is not born of ideas but out of quite a different state of mind becomes an urgent necessity. After all, love is not the monopoly of any State or any religion; it cannot be domesticated or tamed and put into the framework of a family. It is fierce and passionate, without the dead ashes of yesterday. Action born of this is relationship and this is the only way out.
Krishnamurti,
Chapter- 64 Relationship is not intellectual.

So it is clear that cursing and accusing is not an action from relationship.

I don’t hear anyone claiming that withholding full information from the Russian people makes them victims too. All those - Young - people sent out with false information and sacrificed as cannon meat and leaving empty places in their families.

Tears will not bring them back neither ending this human disaster. Even explaining the source isn’t withholding my tears.

1 Like

No wonder krishnamurti is known as the world teacher.

1 Like

Yoga mats !!!

Apparently, they have other uses - which Ukrainian soldiers have discovered, by putting them over their heads while moving around to launch their attacks and appear invisible: :wink:

“According to Konoko, the mats were used to confuse the Russians’ heat -seeking drones. As Ukrainians moved into areas at night, armed with powerful weapons to destroy Russian military vehicles, they were able to move in and out undetected.”
yoga mats and Ukrainian soliders

So, the best defence against tomato throwers, instead of wearing a tin foil hat, or hazmat suit, or thinking up some clever réplique, always bear in mind, a yoga mat worn over the head may be more useful, eh?

That is very heartless to say!!

Examiner,

Why do you say it is “heartless”?

Making fun of a tragedy.

Examiner,

Yes, indeed, the tragedy of tomato-throwers!

2 Likes