Viswa, you seem to know a lot about humility but you have never yourself experienced it. Is that right? Isn’t what you say a theory then?
Yes, good to get a clear definition Peter. We seem to be debating if this ever actually happens or not. What do you think?
Sean.
There is difference between ‘actual humility’ and ‘self-centered humility’.
This humility what we experience at moments is not actual - but it’s self-centered like,
We allow a person to ask question - only when we see he is any valuable to us. Right?
Without any ‘reward/expectation for this self’ - had we be humble to any person?
That is, only if we think ‘he has an answer or what he says is quite right’ - we will be humble to him.
Is there any other occasions/moments you point - where there is no self-centered?
Surely there is no self-centred humility Viswa. That’s a contradiction isn’t it?
Sean. You said you had experienced humility right?
I say that - ‘momentary/temporary’ feeling is not actual. We feel that it’s actual - but it is also ‘self-centered’.
The ‘actual humility’ is permanent,ever lasting- nothing distracts it. And so i pointed out those.
But - if you say you have experienced it at moments, please bring forth that moments as a situation/example - we shall discuss about that.
Hello again Viswa. To answer your question I would say this - if we have learned anything from Krishnamurti, surely it is the importance of observation. Do we ever listen or watch with a silent.mind, even for a moment? Or is this just an impossible idea that we talk about? Are we ever in contact with “what is”? There is no use saying "I have been in contact with “what is”. It is pointless and probably nobody would believe us anyway. Anyone who watches and listens with attention will probably be able to observe and learn a lot. This learning will be obvious to those in contact with this person as the learning will impact on the person’s behaviour and way of being. So if it comes to humility, or anything else, we only have our powers of observation to rely on. Start by observing yourself. Is humility ever present? If so, when is it present? If not, why not? What is going on there? Observe humility in others. Go into the thing and find out. I don’t see any other way. What do you say?
Yes. There is no other way - only ‘observation’. You are right.
But it does not takes time. We can observe/inquire those ‘situations’ that ‘what we had experienced humility is actual?’ and we can see what it is.
You don’t have to treat me as a third person - whatever you had experienced - feel free to bring it on - we shall discuss and find whether those ‘situations’ are actual or we believe as actual. If it is actual - I will learn from you.
And in my observation about this ‘humility’ - I will show you two examples of experiences with ‘strangers’ and ‘with attached persons’. Are you free now - shall we discuss about that?
Thanks.
Hello again Viswa. Please go ahead and tell us about these examples.
Yes.
So, Situation 1 - A person comes near us and starts to ask a question - immediately the ‘self’ scrutinizes that person with its memory and finds out that - ‘it has no knowledge about him’ and treat him as ‘stranger’ - then immediately ‘fear’ arises of being ‘no knowledge about him’ and so we are being humble with them.
Situation 2 - In workplace, we work with a colleague/employer - and we find whether is that person is of any use to us - and if it is - like the employer gives salary and colleague helps us in our work - we are being humble with them. This also applies to parents,teachers,friends,spouse,children,etc…
So, in these - we can see that - only because of ‘fear’ and ‘attachment’ - we are being humble.
There is 3rd Situation - the ‘fear’ of ‘if our name/fame is spoiled - what will happen to us?’ makes us act humble. (This ‘fear’ is the most important one, present within everyone - which makes us to act humble - and so it ‘checks/maintains’ us to be too close with our ‘attachments’)
Is there any other situation we are being humble without these ‘fear’/‘attachment’ you would like to point out?
We can check whether we are actually experiencing humility or not - only with ‘beggers/transgenders/prostitutes/persons whom the society treats low’. We either feel ‘pity’ or act with ‘pride’ - but are we humble with them? - If we are humble with them (i.e. without ‘me’ and ‘you’), then that is the ‘actual humility’.
In these two situations, it seems that there is clearly self-centred activity. As we have already seen, if there is self-centredness, there can be no humility.
Situation 3: You are listening to a friend telling you about a problem she/he has. You’re just quietly listening to your friend, not analysing or judging. You listen with attention and feel for your friend who is suffering. This is not a thing of intellect. You are actually feeling a connection and feeling your friend’s pain.
Is there self-centred activity in this situation?
Hello Emile. This is an interesting point. Is it that when any thought appears, it has a negative effect on our listening and watching and this creates separation? When we are thinking we are not connected?
Sean - from this - i have a question - may I?
Does this ‘listening/feeling’ happens with ‘all/everyone’ or only with ‘our friends/parents/etc…’? - Please don’t reply immediately - just slow down - observe everything and share that.
Hi @Sean .
Here’s how I see it from my ongoing study of Krishnamurti and myself - for what it’s worth.
Thinking comes from memory. There are two types of memory: conditioned (or psychological) and non-conditioned (technical or factual). When psychological memory is accessed, it concurrently gives rise to a psyche - the self center. Non-conditioned memory does not. How psychological memory manages to pull off this feat is not clear to me.
The crucial difference between the two types of memory is what Krishnamurti refers to as ‘becoming’.
Consciousness is experience, naming and recording. This is what occurs in our minds at any given moment. When psychological memory rather than factual memory drives experience, it brings into being a separate psyche and thereby injects the concept of psychological time - an abstract ideation of past, present and future - into the actual present moment.
Psychological time is not the same as chronological time as we are talking about what is taking place in the immediate present. Not successive moments; it is an abstraction in the present. An imagined future so to speak appears in the mind’s eye occurring now, in the present. This elaborate image making essentially cuts off the mind from the actual events of the present and catapults it into a land of make-belief. The land of the blue pill.
Factual memory, on the other hand, only informs as to the make up of the actual moment - it does not cover over the present with psychological concern for the past, present or future. It does not negotiate with fact.
If any of this is the case, the irony is that 'life is what is happening while we are making plans". It is almost as if we never ‘live’ in the present at all. Not in a real sense. So all the energy that went into the planning ends up being for naught.
K: Psychological movement of time and thought, which is the psyche.
PJ: Which is the psyche.
K: That psyche…
PJ: …is limited.
K: …is limited. Whatever it does is limited.
PJ: Then I would ask, what is wrong with it being limited?
K: Nothing is wrong. If you want to live in perpetual conflict there’s nothing wrong.
PJ: All right, move further. To end it, is not only to say, to feel that it is limited, but there must be an ending to it.
K: I said there is.
PJ: What is the nature of this ending?
K: What do you mean ending?
PJ: Just seeing…
K: Let’s take the word ‘ending’ - I must be clear what you and I, we are both saying, understanding the meaning of the same word, to end something - to end attachment, to end, not to smoke, not to do this or that, to put an end to it - the ending.
PJ: The flow ceases to flow.
K: Yes, if you like to… The movement of thought and time ceases, psychologically. What is your difficulty? You are making it terribly complex, a simple thing.
As in most discussions, there are words being used which bring something to mind. Then people want to clarify the different things they have on their mind. The difference between people is not being clarified by examining the words each are working with. This difference I have is a psychological conflict. As I wrote earlier, it is a question of finding your own feet, where you stand, not a position relative to another. Then this position on the ground, is being humble, or humility. I am not offering a definition for its own sake, I making a point about the question of humility… [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin humilis, low, lowly , from humus, ground ;] the free dictionary.
Hello again Viswa. Yes, a good idea to slow down a little. To answer your question I would say this - we often don’t listen very much to the people closest to us. We get into a pattern of communicating that becomes habitual. Perhaps we spend to much time in places like this forum instead of really listening to those around us. These are my observations. How do you see this?
Hi Sean. I could understand what you say here. But what I meant to convey is different-and i can now put that in a different manner-and then we will come to what you had said here. Fine?
So here,
From this, you say that we ‘listen/attend/feel’ for our friend’s sufferings - and no intellectual is acting here - right?
I ask, whether we ‘feel/listen/attend’ the same way to a ‘stranger’s pain/sufferings’?
Yes, in the example there was just listening and with it, feeling. There was no analysing or judging. From what I have observed, I would say that a good listener can also feel a stranger’s suffering and not just a friend’s. I don’t think a previous relationship is necessary. A relationship and connection can be established quickly if one listens attentively. What do you say Viswa?
Yes Sean. Only then there is “humility”.
If we can feel/listen the same way to both - ‘our attached person’ and ‘stranger/low treated person in the society’ - then that feeling is ‘humility’ and it does not stops - flows continuously.
If there is differentiated feeling between those two - even no intellectual is involved here - it is not humility - as the attachment of ‘my’ friend (self-center) is present there.
So ‘humility’ is not a quality, but is the absence of attachment. Which is the absence of ego. ‘Partial’ humility is not true humility at all.
Yes dan.
One may think that this ‘partial’ is also humility which comes at intervals/moments - but it is not, as the ‘self’ is still there - and so I said in my previous reply as - this is ‘self-centered humility’ which is not ‘actual humility’ as there is ‘fear’ and ‘attachments’