Daily Quote, Monday August 31, 2009.
Good morning everyone,
Just to let everyone know, we decided to switch to a new book for the study group last night. This week we are looking at options and we'll make a choice next weekend. If you have ideas, please post them on the blog.
Here is today's quote:
A man who pursues virtue consciously is unvirtuous.
I am only conscious of this activity of the 'me' when I am opposing, when consciousness is thwarted, when the 'me' is desirous of achieving a result. The 'me' is active, or I am conscious of that centre, when pleasure comes to an end and I want to have more of that pleasure; then there is resistance, and there is a purposive shaping of the mind to a particular end which will give me a delight, a satisfaction. I am aware of myself and my activities when I am pursuing virtue consciously. That is all we know. A man who pursues virtue consciously is unvirtuous. Humility cannot be pursued, and that is the beauty of humility.
The Collected Works, Vol. VI - 321.
Here are my reflections.
Last night at the study group we talked for a while about the difference between the statement "I am happy" and the statement "I am happiness". The self cannot experience happiness. There can only be the experience of happiness, without the experiencer, for happiness to be. The appearance of the self, is therefore the ending of happiness (just as it is the beginning of time, memory, ambition, and conflict). It's like the phrase "I love you." Can you notice how the word "love" is used to bridge the gap between me and you? But if you say "I am love", then there is no me, just love, and so no bridge is needed between us.
Best wishes
Robert
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Daily Quote, Sunday August 30, 2009.
Good morning,
The rain just stopped so it seemed like the right moment to get up!
Here is today's quote:
When are you conscious of being the 'me'?
What is it to be self-centred? When are you conscious of being the 'me'? As I have suggested often during these talks, don't merely listen to me verbally, but use the words as a mirror in which you see your own mind in operation. If you merely listen to my words, then you are very superficial, and your reactions will be very superficial.
But if you can listen, not to understand me or what I am saying, but to see yourself in the mirror of my words, if you use me as a mirror in which you discover your own activity, then it will have a tremendous and profound effect. But if you merely listen as in political or any other talks, then I am afraid you will miss the whole implication of the discovery for yourself of that truth which dissolves the centre of the 'me'.
The Collected Works, Vol. VI - 321
Here are my reflections.
It's very interesting to look at how you approach reading Krishnamurti. Many of us in the study group may have approached his teachings a mystery to unravel, a system to decode, or as a network of ideas to master. I think I did this when I first read him. It was the same with reading Derrida: it was only sometime much later that it started to be something more that a skill I had learned.
In other words, it's easy to think that Krishnamurti's teachings are all "out there" and beyond us and that it is knowledge we have to obtain before we can "apply" Krishnamurti. Isn't this such a traditional way of learning about something or someone? The idea here is that we don't know about his ideas and that we have to raise ourselves up?
When we just try to know what he's saying isn't there a distance between us and the words? What we are looking for is real understanding, not knowledge, and this can only come when the words are taken into us and used as a mirror. When we just want to remember what he says so that the knowledge lasts, then there is a big problem.
To really listen to or read Krishnamurti is to feel those words you hear or read on the page in the light of your own self-awareness. I often say this in my yoga classes: just take what I'm saying about inquiry into your own muscles and joints, and in that feeling-sense forget what I'm saying, and just observe your reaction to that feeling - the motives, uncertainties and ambitions that you bring into it. Then the words disolve.
Best wishes
Robert
Good morning,
The rain just stopped so it seemed like the right moment to get up!
Here is today's quote:
When are you conscious of being the 'me'?
What is it to be self-centred? When are you conscious of being the 'me'? As I have suggested often during these talks, don't merely listen to me verbally, but use the words as a mirror in which you see your own mind in operation. If you merely listen to my words, then you are very superficial, and your reactions will be very superficial.
But if you can listen, not to understand me or what I am saying, but to see yourself in the mirror of my words, if you use me as a mirror in which you discover your own activity, then it will have a tremendous and profound effect. But if you merely listen as in political or any other talks, then I am afraid you will miss the whole implication of the discovery for yourself of that truth which dissolves the centre of the 'me'.
The Collected Works, Vol. VI - 321
Here are my reflections.
It's very interesting to look at how you approach reading Krishnamurti. Many of us in the study group may have approached his teachings a mystery to unravel, a system to decode, or as a network of ideas to master. I think I did this when I first read him. It was the same with reading Derrida: it was only sometime much later that it started to be something more that a skill I had learned.
In other words, it's easy to think that Krishnamurti's teachings are all "out there" and beyond us and that it is knowledge we have to obtain before we can "apply" Krishnamurti. Isn't this such a traditional way of learning about something or someone? The idea here is that we don't know about his ideas and that we have to raise ourselves up?
When we just try to know what he's saying isn't there a distance between us and the words? What we are looking for is real understanding, not knowledge, and this can only come when the words are taken into us and used as a mirror. When we just want to remember what he says so that the knowledge lasts, then there is a big problem.
To really listen to or read Krishnamurti is to feel those words you hear or read on the page in the light of your own self-awareness. I often say this in my yoga classes: just take what I'm saying about inquiry into your own muscles and joints, and in that feeling-sense forget what I'm saying, and just observe your reaction to that feeling - the motives, uncertainties and ambitions that you bring into it. Then the words disolve.
Best wishes
Robert
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Daily Quote, Saturday August 29, 2009.
Good afternoon,
I won't mention that today the temperature is 20 degrees c lower than a week ago. :-(
Here is today's quote:
Until the self is abandoned, the mind can never be free.
The self must cease through awareness of its own limitation, the falseness of its own existence. However deep, wide, and extensive it may become, the self is always limited, and until it is abandoned, the mind can never be free. The mere perception of that fact is the ending of the self, and only then is it possible for that which is the real to come into being.
The Collected Works, Vol. VIII - 312
Here are my reflections.
Becoming aware of our own limitation is to become aware of ourself, not as an idea for as an iea we are limitless; we can pile experience upon experience, thought upon thought, information upon information. But this does not lead to freedom, just a bigger room in the prison. The fact is that the mind does not exist; there is nothing real about it: it's just the collection of memories, motives, ambitions, and habits that we call consciousness. If you practice yoga postures, notice how you can so easily become atatched to ideas about those postures and how tenacious you can be about those ideas: they are you. Once we can see that if we think of ourselves as our mind we cannot be free, then we are free.
Best wishes
Robert
Good afternoon,
I won't mention that today the temperature is 20 degrees c lower than a week ago. :-(
Here is today's quote:
Until the self is abandoned, the mind can never be free.
The self must cease through awareness of its own limitation, the falseness of its own existence. However deep, wide, and extensive it may become, the self is always limited, and until it is abandoned, the mind can never be free. The mere perception of that fact is the ending of the self, and only then is it possible for that which is the real to come into being.
The Collected Works, Vol. VIII - 312
Here are my reflections.
Becoming aware of our own limitation is to become aware of ourself, not as an idea for as an iea we are limitless; we can pile experience upon experience, thought upon thought, information upon information. But this does not lead to freedom, just a bigger room in the prison. The fact is that the mind does not exist; there is nothing real about it: it's just the collection of memories, motives, ambitions, and habits that we call consciousness. If you practice yoga postures, notice how you can so easily become atatched to ideas about those postures and how tenacious you can be about those ideas: they are you. Once we can see that if we think of ourselves as our mind we cannot be free, then we are free.
Best wishes
Robert
Friday, August 28, 2009
Daily Quote, Friday August 28, 2009.
Good morning,
In a bit of a hurry this morning, so I'll post my reflection later on. Feel free to start commenting without me! :-)
Robert
The gap cannot be bridged by any effort.
So long as the 'me' is the observer, the one who gathers experience, strengthens himself through experience, there can be no radical change, no creative release. That creative release comes only when the thinker is the thought, but the gap cannot be bridged by any effort. When the mind realizes that any speculation, any verbalization, any form of thought only gives strength to the 'me', when it sees that as long as the thinker exists apart from thought there must be limitation, the conflict of duality - when the mind realizes that - then it is watchful, everlastingly aware of how it is separating itself from experience, asserting itself, seeking power.
In that awareness, if the mind pursues it ever more deeply and extensively without seeking an end, a goal, there comes a state in which the thinker and the thought are one. In that state there is no effort, there is no becoming, there is no desire to change; in that state the 'me' is not, for there is a transformation which is not of the mind.
The First and Last Freedom - 140
Good morning,
In a bit of a hurry this morning, so I'll post my reflection later on. Feel free to start commenting without me! :-)
Robert
The gap cannot be bridged by any effort.
So long as the 'me' is the observer, the one who gathers experience, strengthens himself through experience, there can be no radical change, no creative release. That creative release comes only when the thinker is the thought, but the gap cannot be bridged by any effort. When the mind realizes that any speculation, any verbalization, any form of thought only gives strength to the 'me', when it sees that as long as the thinker exists apart from thought there must be limitation, the conflict of duality - when the mind realizes that - then it is watchful, everlastingly aware of how it is separating itself from experience, asserting itself, seeking power.
In that awareness, if the mind pursues it ever more deeply and extensively without seeking an end, a goal, there comes a state in which the thinker and the thought are one. In that state there is no effort, there is no becoming, there is no desire to change; in that state the 'me' is not, for there is a transformation which is not of the mind.
The First and Last Freedom - 140
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Daily Quote, Thursday August 27, 2009.
Good sunny morning!
Here is today's quote:
A man who says 'I know' is the most destructive human being.
A man who says 'I know' is the most destructive human being because he really does not know. What does he know? So when you are conscious you are transformed, when you are aware that you are transformed, you are not.
The Collected Works, Vol. VIII - 5
Here are my reflections.
Why do we not know? Is it lack of actual information; have we not done enough research, and consulted the right authorities? Or is is that knowing and understanding are mutually exclusive? Does the man who knows only know from a fragment, from his culture, his memory, his guru?
And why is this dangerous? Is there insufficient information; one man can't know everything? Or is it that knowing serves another purpose? Is it that knowing, saying that I know, is more about the "I" - its creation and maintenance - than it is the "know"? Is this need to strengthen the "I" the most dangerous thing we can do? Does this create unity, affection, listening, and love? Or does it build walls of images and anger?
So the whole question of transformation gets caught up it in this. Is not the whole saying of "I am" enlightened not an actualisation of the ego, the ego working through something, some project, reaching some destination, something that is known? But is it not the case, that enlightenment cannot be known - just felt, sensed, looked at impartially and understood with compassion - and for that there must be no "I". Even recognising that it cannot be known is the re-appearance of the "I": I know it can't be known!
Surely, a man who says 'I know' destroys for himself the possibility of love?
Best wishes
Robert
Good sunny morning!
Here is today's quote:
A man who says 'I know' is the most destructive human being.
A man who says 'I know' is the most destructive human being because he really does not know. What does he know? So when you are conscious you are transformed, when you are aware that you are transformed, you are not.
The Collected Works, Vol. VIII - 5
Here are my reflections.
Why do we not know? Is it lack of actual information; have we not done enough research, and consulted the right authorities? Or is is that knowing and understanding are mutually exclusive? Does the man who knows only know from a fragment, from his culture, his memory, his guru?
And why is this dangerous? Is there insufficient information; one man can't know everything? Or is it that knowing serves another purpose? Is it that knowing, saying that I know, is more about the "I" - its creation and maintenance - than it is the "know"? Is this need to strengthen the "I" the most dangerous thing we can do? Does this create unity, affection, listening, and love? Or does it build walls of images and anger?
So the whole question of transformation gets caught up it in this. Is not the whole saying of "I am" enlightened not an actualisation of the ego, the ego working through something, some project, reaching some destination, something that is known? But is it not the case, that enlightenment cannot be known - just felt, sensed, looked at impartially and understood with compassion - and for that there must be no "I". Even recognising that it cannot be known is the re-appearance of the "I": I know it can't be known!
Surely, a man who says 'I know' destroys for himself the possibility of love?
Best wishes
Robert
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Daily Quote, Wednesday August 26, 2009.
Good morning everyone,
I' hoping the sun does its break-through thing again today!
Here is today's quote:
No desire to be or not to be.
Self-knowledge...is not a process to be read about or speculated upon: it must be discovered by each one from moment to moment, so that the mind becomes extraordinarily alert. In that alertness there is a certain quiescence, a passive awareness in which there is no desire to be or not to be, and in which there is an astonishing sense of freedom. It may be only for a minute, for a second - that is enough.
That freedom is not of memory; it is a living thing, but the mind, having tasted it, reduces it to a memory and then wants more of it. To be aware of this total process is possible only through self-knowledge, and self-knowledge comes into being from moment to moment as we watch our speech, our gestures, the way we talk, and the hidden motives that are suddenly revealed. Then only is it possible to be free from fear. As long as there is fear, there is no love. Fear darkens our being and that fear cannot be washed away by any prayer, by any ideal or activity.
The cause of fear is the 'me', the 'me' which is so complex in its desires, wants, pursuits. The mind has to understand that whole process, and the understanding of it comes only when there is watchfulness without choice.
The Collected Works, Vol. VII - 327
Here are my reflections.
I don't have much to add to this, but it is interesting to consider that we have to watch for clues in our speech and behaviour, and decypher the clues about our motives. This is the inquiry into the unconscious. These are our hidden motives; the mind does to be extraordinarily alert for this.
I have been looking at my introversion a lot lately and have seen more and more clues to this in my thoughts, speech, and actions. Paying deep attention, I start to see connections that were not visible before. I started by inquiring into my resistance to certain things and why that might be there. The idea is not to become more extravert, as if being introvert is a problem; but to find a place of authenticity where there is complete effortless in being and no struggle. No desire to be or not to be.
Have you spent much time to looking at your resistance to certain things and have you become aware of connections between them?
The same inquiry could go the other way. Have you noticed yourself very drawn to certain things?
Best wishes
Robert
Good morning everyone,
I' hoping the sun does its break-through thing again today!
Here is today's quote:
No desire to be or not to be.
Self-knowledge...is not a process to be read about or speculated upon: it must be discovered by each one from moment to moment, so that the mind becomes extraordinarily alert. In that alertness there is a certain quiescence, a passive awareness in which there is no desire to be or not to be, and in which there is an astonishing sense of freedom. It may be only for a minute, for a second - that is enough.
That freedom is not of memory; it is a living thing, but the mind, having tasted it, reduces it to a memory and then wants more of it. To be aware of this total process is possible only through self-knowledge, and self-knowledge comes into being from moment to moment as we watch our speech, our gestures, the way we talk, and the hidden motives that are suddenly revealed. Then only is it possible to be free from fear. As long as there is fear, there is no love. Fear darkens our being and that fear cannot be washed away by any prayer, by any ideal or activity.
The cause of fear is the 'me', the 'me' which is so complex in its desires, wants, pursuits. The mind has to understand that whole process, and the understanding of it comes only when there is watchfulness without choice.
The Collected Works, Vol. VII - 327
Here are my reflections.
I don't have much to add to this, but it is interesting to consider that we have to watch for clues in our speech and behaviour, and decypher the clues about our motives. This is the inquiry into the unconscious. These are our hidden motives; the mind does to be extraordinarily alert for this.
I have been looking at my introversion a lot lately and have seen more and more clues to this in my thoughts, speech, and actions. Paying deep attention, I start to see connections that were not visible before. I started by inquiring into my resistance to certain things and why that might be there. The idea is not to become more extravert, as if being introvert is a problem; but to find a place of authenticity where there is complete effortless in being and no struggle. No desire to be or not to be.
Have you spent much time to looking at your resistance to certain things and have you become aware of connections between them?
The same inquiry could go the other way. Have you noticed yourself very drawn to certain things?
Best wishes
Robert
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Study Group Meeting this Sunday
Hi everyone,
After a missing a couple of sessions due to vacations and things, we are meeting again at the Second Cup on Spring Garden Road this Sunday August 29, at 5:30pm - going until around 7:30pm.
Look forward to seeing you there.
If you haven't been before and would like to come along and meet people and see what it's like, please feel free to come along.
Robert
After a missing a couple of sessions due to vacations and things, we are meeting again at the Second Cup on Spring Garden Road this Sunday August 29, at 5:30pm - going until around 7:30pm.
Look forward to seeing you there.
If you haven't been before and would like to come along and meet people and see what it's like, please feel free to come along.
Robert
Daily Quote, Tuesday August 25, 2009.
Good morning everyone,
Looking out the window for the advertised sunshine - none yet! :-)
Here is today's quote:
Every reaction becomes a means of discovery.
As one becomes aware at the conscious level, one also begins to discover the envy, the struggles, the desires, the motives, the anxieties that lie at the deeper levels of consciousness. When the mind is intent on discovering the whole process of itself, then every incident, every reaction becomes a means of discovery, of knowing oneself.
That requires patient watchfulness - which is not the watchfulness of a mind that is constantly struggling, that is learning how to be watchful. Then you will see that the sleeping hours are as important as the waking hours, because life then is a total process. As long as you do not know yourself, fear will continue, and all the illusions that the self creates will flourish.
The Collected Works, Vol. VII - 327
Here are my reflections.
Elsewhere Krishnamurti says that "Dreams are a device by which one part of the mind communicates with the other...Cannot this communication go on all the time, during the waking hours as well?...if you can be so aware, constantly watching, listening, you will find that you do not fream at all".
So the unconscious is all part of our conditioning; that which we might notice first - the conscious mind - is just the tip of it.
But you can't learn to be watchful; as soon as you try to do something there is struggle between what you are and what you are not (or what you are to what you want to be). So not trying is the condition for removing the duality, and so the ego, so that watching is possible.
It's that very simple negative inquiry again. You can't go from A to B, but you can remove A so that B can be revealed. That process is self-observation.
Best wishes
Robert
Good morning everyone,
Looking out the window for the advertised sunshine - none yet! :-)
Here is today's quote:
Every reaction becomes a means of discovery.
As one becomes aware at the conscious level, one also begins to discover the envy, the struggles, the desires, the motives, the anxieties that lie at the deeper levels of consciousness. When the mind is intent on discovering the whole process of itself, then every incident, every reaction becomes a means of discovery, of knowing oneself.
That requires patient watchfulness - which is not the watchfulness of a mind that is constantly struggling, that is learning how to be watchful. Then you will see that the sleeping hours are as important as the waking hours, because life then is a total process. As long as you do not know yourself, fear will continue, and all the illusions that the self creates will flourish.
The Collected Works, Vol. VII - 327
Here are my reflections.
Elsewhere Krishnamurti says that "Dreams are a device by which one part of the mind communicates with the other...Cannot this communication go on all the time, during the waking hours as well?...if you can be so aware, constantly watching, listening, you will find that you do not fream at all".
So the unconscious is all part of our conditioning; that which we might notice first - the conscious mind - is just the tip of it.
But you can't learn to be watchful; as soon as you try to do something there is struggle between what you are and what you are not (or what you are to what you want to be). So not trying is the condition for removing the duality, and so the ego, so that watching is possible.
It's that very simple negative inquiry again. You can't go from A to B, but you can remove A so that B can be revealed. That process is self-observation.
Best wishes
Robert
Monday, August 24, 2009
Daily Quote, Monday August 24, 2009.
Good morning everyone,
Not too bad with the hurricane yesterday, it seems. More of a tropical storm in the end, and more fun than disaster for most. I thought, as I was outside, the rain was warm and heavy enough that you could take a shower in it!
Here is today's quote:
The self is still the self at any level you may place it.
Can I be aware of my greed, of my envy, from moment to moment? These feelings are expressions of the 'me', of the self, are they not? The self is still the self at any level you may place it; whether it is the higher self or the lower self, it is still within the field of thought. And can I be aware of these things as they arise from moment to moment?
Can I discover for myself the activities of my ego when I am eating, talking at table, when I am playing, when I am listening, when I am with a group of people? Can I be aware of the accumulated resentments, of the desire to impress, to be somebody? Can I discover that I am greedy and be aware of my condemnation of greed? The very word greed is a condemnation, is it not?
To be aware of greed is also to be aware of the desire to be free from it and to see why one wants to be free from it - the whole process. This is not a very complicated procedure; one can immediately grasp the whole significance of it. So one begins to understand from moment to moment this constant growth of the 'me', with its self-importance, its self-projected activities - which is basically, fundamentally, the cause of fear.
But you cannot take action to get rid of the cause; all you can do is to be aware of it. The moment you want to be free from the ego, that very desire is also part of the ego, so you have a constant battle in the ego over two desirable things, between the part that wants and the part that does not.
Here are my reflections.
The idea of the self still being the self no matter whether it is the higher or lower self is getting at the Hindu notion of the Atman, or inner God, that Patanjali also talks about in the Yoga sutras and that Krishna refers to in the Bhagavad Gita. The higher self, Atman, is still the product of the lower self, the ego. Desire resides in the ego. Therefore, you can't take action to to get rid of greed, because this is still the action of the ego and desire. Instead, there is a duality created within the self, as we desire two things: what our greed wants and to be free of the greed. And in a sense the higher self is just more greed, the desire for further, deeper and more exciting experience. The Atman is the manifestation of greed.
You can't will your way out of this, as will, after all, is just a concentrated form of desire. All you can do is be aware of it, as Krishnamurti points out. And it's not hard to do, to see the process of the mind, but it is hard in that we ee all that we believe is negative in ourselves. We can look directly at many things that we think to be urgly because there is love underneath it; can it be the same with ourselves?
Best wishes
Robert
Good morning everyone,
Not too bad with the hurricane yesterday, it seems. More of a tropical storm in the end, and more fun than disaster for most. I thought, as I was outside, the rain was warm and heavy enough that you could take a shower in it!
Here is today's quote:
The self is still the self at any level you may place it.
Can I be aware of my greed, of my envy, from moment to moment? These feelings are expressions of the 'me', of the self, are they not? The self is still the self at any level you may place it; whether it is the higher self or the lower self, it is still within the field of thought. And can I be aware of these things as they arise from moment to moment?
Can I discover for myself the activities of my ego when I am eating, talking at table, when I am playing, when I am listening, when I am with a group of people? Can I be aware of the accumulated resentments, of the desire to impress, to be somebody? Can I discover that I am greedy and be aware of my condemnation of greed? The very word greed is a condemnation, is it not?
To be aware of greed is also to be aware of the desire to be free from it and to see why one wants to be free from it - the whole process. This is not a very complicated procedure; one can immediately grasp the whole significance of it. So one begins to understand from moment to moment this constant growth of the 'me', with its self-importance, its self-projected activities - which is basically, fundamentally, the cause of fear.
But you cannot take action to get rid of the cause; all you can do is to be aware of it. The moment you want to be free from the ego, that very desire is also part of the ego, so you have a constant battle in the ego over two desirable things, between the part that wants and the part that does not.
Here are my reflections.
The idea of the self still being the self no matter whether it is the higher or lower self is getting at the Hindu notion of the Atman, or inner God, that Patanjali also talks about in the Yoga sutras and that Krishna refers to in the Bhagavad Gita. The higher self, Atman, is still the product of the lower self, the ego. Desire resides in the ego. Therefore, you can't take action to to get rid of greed, because this is still the action of the ego and desire. Instead, there is a duality created within the self, as we desire two things: what our greed wants and to be free of the greed. And in a sense the higher self is just more greed, the desire for further, deeper and more exciting experience. The Atman is the manifestation of greed.
You can't will your way out of this, as will, after all, is just a concentrated form of desire. All you can do is be aware of it, as Krishnamurti points out. And it's not hard to do, to see the process of the mind, but it is hard in that we ee all that we believe is negative in ourselves. We can look directly at many things that we think to be urgly because there is love underneath it; can it be the same with ourselves?
Best wishes
Robert
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Daily Quote, Sunday August 23, 2009.
Good morning,
On this stormy looking day!
Uncovering the 'me'.
When we are aware of ourselves, is not the whole movement of living a way of uncovering the 'me', the ego, the self? The self is a very complex process which can be uncovered only in relationship, in our daily activities, in the way we talk, the way we judge, calculate, the way we condemn others and ourselves. All that reveals the conditioned state of our own thinking; and is it not important to be aware of this whole process?
It is only through awareness of what is true from moment to moment that there is discovery of the timeless, the eternal. Without self-knowledge, the eternal cannot be. When we do not know ourselves, the eternal becomes a mere word, a symbol, a speculation, a dogma, a belief, an illusion to which the mind can escape. But, if one begins to understand the 'me' in all its various activities from day to day, then in that very understanding, without any effort, the nameless, the timeless, comes into being. But the timeless is not a reward for self-knowledge.
That which is eternal cannot be sought after; the mind cannot acquire it. It comes into being when the mind is quiet, and the mind can be quiet only when it is simple, when it is no longer storing up, condemning, judging, weighing. It is only the simple mind that can understand the real, not the mind that is full of words, knowledge, information.
The mind that analyses, calculates, is not a simple mind...
The Collected Works, Vol. VII - 325
Here are my reflections.
If we are aware of ourselves moment by moment, an inward non-being appears as the self-identifying process stops. As long as we seek the eternal, the self-identifying process goes on. A simple mind, one that is self-aware, ceases to self-identify; we see that the whole process of self-identifying is conditioning. We see that it repeats and in that seeing the repetition stops.
This is a simple mind and it is also a mature mind. A mature mind can be alone; for an immature mind alone means feeling isolated, but for a mature mind there is no inner being to experience this and to fuel the self-identification process, which is always a movement outwards in search of being. Only a being that has ceased to self-identify can be alone.
Best wishes
Robert
Good morning,
On this stormy looking day!
Uncovering the 'me'.
When we are aware of ourselves, is not the whole movement of living a way of uncovering the 'me', the ego, the self? The self is a very complex process which can be uncovered only in relationship, in our daily activities, in the way we talk, the way we judge, calculate, the way we condemn others and ourselves. All that reveals the conditioned state of our own thinking; and is it not important to be aware of this whole process?
It is only through awareness of what is true from moment to moment that there is discovery of the timeless, the eternal. Without self-knowledge, the eternal cannot be. When we do not know ourselves, the eternal becomes a mere word, a symbol, a speculation, a dogma, a belief, an illusion to which the mind can escape. But, if one begins to understand the 'me' in all its various activities from day to day, then in that very understanding, without any effort, the nameless, the timeless, comes into being. But the timeless is not a reward for self-knowledge.
That which is eternal cannot be sought after; the mind cannot acquire it. It comes into being when the mind is quiet, and the mind can be quiet only when it is simple, when it is no longer storing up, condemning, judging, weighing. It is only the simple mind that can understand the real, not the mind that is full of words, knowledge, information.
The mind that analyses, calculates, is not a simple mind...
The Collected Works, Vol. VII - 325
Here are my reflections.
If we are aware of ourselves moment by moment, an inward non-being appears as the self-identifying process stops. As long as we seek the eternal, the self-identifying process goes on. A simple mind, one that is self-aware, ceases to self-identify; we see that the whole process of self-identifying is conditioning. We see that it repeats and in that seeing the repetition stops.
This is a simple mind and it is also a mature mind. A mature mind can be alone; for an immature mind alone means feeling isolated, but for a mature mind there is no inner being to experience this and to fuel the self-identification process, which is always a movement outwards in search of being. Only a being that has ceased to self-identify can be alone.
Best wishes
Robert
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Daily Quote, Saturday August 22, 2009.
Good morning everyone,
Hurricane on the way!
The mind which merely gathers experience remains very shallow.
Being aware does not mean learning and accumulating lessons from life; on the contrary, to be aware is to be without the scars of accumulated experience. After all, when the mind merely gathers experience according to its own wishes, it remains very shallow, superficial. A mind which is deeply observant does not get caught up in self-centred activities, and the mind is not observant if there is any action of condemnation or comparison. Comparison and condemnation do not bring understand-ing, rather they block understanding. To be aware is to observe - just to observe - without any self-identifying process. Such a mind is free of that hard core which is formed by self-centred activities.
The Collected Works, Vol. X - 17
Here are my reflections.
Patanjali in the Yoga Sutras refers to samskaras in the same way that Krishnamurti refers to accumulated experience. It constitutes our karma, the experiences we will repeat until the light of self-awareness dawns. The signs of akrma are there when we see ourselves comparing and condeming, and these self-idemtifying processes surely deepen the samskaras. Can we. indeed, just look?
Best wishes
Robert
Good morning everyone,
Hurricane on the way!
The mind which merely gathers experience remains very shallow.
Being aware does not mean learning and accumulating lessons from life; on the contrary, to be aware is to be without the scars of accumulated experience. After all, when the mind merely gathers experience according to its own wishes, it remains very shallow, superficial. A mind which is deeply observant does not get caught up in self-centred activities, and the mind is not observant if there is any action of condemnation or comparison. Comparison and condemnation do not bring understand-ing, rather they block understanding. To be aware is to observe - just to observe - without any self-identifying process. Such a mind is free of that hard core which is formed by self-centred activities.
The Collected Works, Vol. X - 17
Here are my reflections.
Patanjali in the Yoga Sutras refers to samskaras in the same way that Krishnamurti refers to accumulated experience. It constitutes our karma, the experiences we will repeat until the light of self-awareness dawns. The signs of akrma are there when we see ourselves comparing and condeming, and these self-idemtifying processes surely deepen the samskaras. Can we. indeed, just look?
Best wishes
Robert
Friday, August 21, 2009
Daily Quote, Friday August 21, 2009.
Good morning everyone! Looks like sun after a hazy start. :-)
Here is todays' quote:
Does the search for experience lead to reality?
Experience nearly always forms a hardened centre in the mind, as the self, which is a deteriorating factor. Most of us are seeking experience. We may be tired of the worldly experiences of fame, notoriety, wealth, sex, and so on, but we all want greater, wider experience of some kind, especially those of us who are attempting to reach a so-called spiritual state. Being tired of worldly things, we want a more extensive, a wider, deeper experience; and to arrive at such an experience, we suppress, we control, we dominate ourselves, hoping thereby to achieve a full realization of God, or what you will.
We think the pursuit of experience is the right way of life in order to attain greater vision, and I question whether that is so.
Does this search for experience, which is really a demand for greater, fuller sensation, lead to reality? Or is it a factor which cripples the mind?
The Collected Works, Vol. X - 16
Here are my relections.
At one level Krishnamurti is saying that the more we accummulate experience, the more we sediment the accummulator, the self, the experiencer. This has been his theme this week.
At a second level, he asks if this can lead to a spiritual life? It's hard to see this as anything other than impossible, as the sedimenting of the experiencer establishes a stronger and taller wall between this experiencer, the self, you or me, and the world, the other, between you and me. So the more we search for the experience that will give us that spiritual moment, the more we get away from it. More and more images crystalise in the mind, and the centre of that experience gets more and more established.
Then there is another level where the self is created in remembered pleasure, where the desire to repeat that pleasure leads to a craving for more experience, and so the search for new experience goes on and on; beyond sex, wealth, fame, into spiritual life. This is what some have called spiritual materialism; spirituality brought within the material framework and reduced to accummulation.
So what is a truly spiritual experience? Maybe this will be taken up in the next quote...
Best wishes
Robert
Good morning everyone! Looks like sun after a hazy start. :-)
Here is todays' quote:
Does the search for experience lead to reality?
Experience nearly always forms a hardened centre in the mind, as the self, which is a deteriorating factor. Most of us are seeking experience. We may be tired of the worldly experiences of fame, notoriety, wealth, sex, and so on, but we all want greater, wider experience of some kind, especially those of us who are attempting to reach a so-called spiritual state. Being tired of worldly things, we want a more extensive, a wider, deeper experience; and to arrive at such an experience, we suppress, we control, we dominate ourselves, hoping thereby to achieve a full realization of God, or what you will.
We think the pursuit of experience is the right way of life in order to attain greater vision, and I question whether that is so.
Does this search for experience, which is really a demand for greater, fuller sensation, lead to reality? Or is it a factor which cripples the mind?
The Collected Works, Vol. X - 16
Here are my relections.
At one level Krishnamurti is saying that the more we accummulate experience, the more we sediment the accummulator, the self, the experiencer. This has been his theme this week.
At a second level, he asks if this can lead to a spiritual life? It's hard to see this as anything other than impossible, as the sedimenting of the experiencer establishes a stronger and taller wall between this experiencer, the self, you or me, and the world, the other, between you and me. So the more we search for the experience that will give us that spiritual moment, the more we get away from it. More and more images crystalise in the mind, and the centre of that experience gets more and more established.
Then there is another level where the self is created in remembered pleasure, where the desire to repeat that pleasure leads to a craving for more experience, and so the search for new experience goes on and on; beyond sex, wealth, fame, into spiritual life. This is what some have called spiritual materialism; spirituality brought within the material framework and reduced to accummulation.
So what is a truly spiritual experience? Maybe this will be taken up in the next quote...
Best wishes
Robert
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Get the daily quotes delivered to your email box each morning.
If you sign up to www.friendfeed.com, you can get the friendfeed to forward the daily quote to your email inbox by clicking the Bookmarklet gadget and bookmarking this blog. Go to Help on Friendfeed to find this.
Friendfeed is not like Facebook. It can be used simply to share information and have information from anywhere on the web sent to you. It seems quite useful.
I have also set up a Krishnamurti Group on Friendfeed. If you subscribe to this it allows me or you to sent interesting things about Krishnamurti, philosophy, or anything related to our online conversations, to everyone else in the group.
This seems like a very helpful tool.
Robert
Friendfeed is not like Facebook. It can be used simply to share information and have information from anywhere on the web sent to you. It seems quite useful.
I have also set up a Krishnamurti Group on Friendfeed. If you subscribe to this it allows me or you to sent interesting things about Krishnamurti, philosophy, or anything related to our online conversations, to everyone else in the group.
This seems like a very helpful tool.
Robert
Daily Quote, Thursday August 20, 2009.
Good morning everyone,
Much cooler this morning! Hope you are well and slept deeply!
Here is today's quote:
Meditation is inquiry into the very being of the meditator.
As human beings we are all capable of inquiry, of discovery, and this whole process is meditation. Meditation is inquiry into the very being of the meditator. You cannot meditate without self-knowledge, without being aware of the ways of your own mind, from the superficial responses to the most complex subtleties of thought. I am sure it is not really difficult to know, to be aware of oneself, but it is difficult for most of us because we are so afraid to inquire, to grope, to search out. Our fear is not of the unknown, but of letting go of the known. It is only when the mind allows the known to fade away that there is complete freedom from the known, and only then is it possible for the new impulse to come into being.
The Collected Works, Vol. X - 255
Here are my reflections.
Patanjali makes a similar commect in the Yoga Sutras, that our problem is not fear of the unknown but fear of letting go of the known. We are not afraid of what we don't know or can't know, but we are afraid of losing what we know. It's our reference point. Because of this we don't meditate, we don'y go into the question of knowing the self, we don't take the risk of being without beingness. This beingness of the self is what we are most afraid of losing. If we let it go, we might find that the unknown cannot be known and that there is a different quality to being than there is to being the self. But this is surely the point: that freedom - the new and the creative - can have no foundation; it cannot come for the known. To continue Nicole's point from her comment yesterday, it cannot come from accummulation, from gathering more knowledge.
Best wishes
Robert
Good morning everyone,
Much cooler this morning! Hope you are well and slept deeply!
Here is today's quote:
Meditation is inquiry into the very being of the meditator.
As human beings we are all capable of inquiry, of discovery, and this whole process is meditation. Meditation is inquiry into the very being of the meditator. You cannot meditate without self-knowledge, without being aware of the ways of your own mind, from the superficial responses to the most complex subtleties of thought. I am sure it is not really difficult to know, to be aware of oneself, but it is difficult for most of us because we are so afraid to inquire, to grope, to search out. Our fear is not of the unknown, but of letting go of the known. It is only when the mind allows the known to fade away that there is complete freedom from the known, and only then is it possible for the new impulse to come into being.
The Collected Works, Vol. X - 255
Here are my reflections.
Patanjali makes a similar commect in the Yoga Sutras, that our problem is not fear of the unknown but fear of letting go of the known. We are not afraid of what we don't know or can't know, but we are afraid of losing what we know. It's our reference point. Because of this we don't meditate, we don'y go into the question of knowing the self, we don't take the risk of being without beingness. This beingness of the self is what we are most afraid of losing. If we let it go, we might find that the unknown cannot be known and that there is a different quality to being than there is to being the self. But this is surely the point: that freedom - the new and the creative - can have no foundation; it cannot come for the known. To continue Nicole's point from her comment yesterday, it cannot come from accummulation, from gathering more knowledge.
Best wishes
Robert
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Daily Quote, Wednesday August 19, 2009.
Good morning everyone,
My in-house themometer has, at last, dropped below 30 degrees! Hope you're doing ok. :-)
A ceaseless inquiry into every movement of thought.
You will have to find out for yourself, and that requires enormous investigation, hard work - much harder work than earning a livelihood, which is mere routine. It requires astonishing vigilance, constant watchfulness, a ceaseless inquiry into every movement of thought. And the moment you begin to inquire into the process of thinking, which is to isolate each thought and think it through to the end, you will see how arduous it is; it is not a lazy man's pleasure.
And it is essential to do this because it is only the mind that has emptied itself of all its old recognitions, its old distractions, its conflicts and self-contradictions - it is only such a mind that has the new, the creative impulse of reality. The mind then creates its own action; it brings into being a different activity altogether, without which mere social reform, however necessary, however beneficial, cannot possibly bring about a peaceful and happy world.
The Collected Works, Vol. X - 255
Here are my reflections.
Krishnamurti's comment that inquiry has to be ceaseless reminds me of Derrida's remark that the work of deconstruction is never ending. This is because the work of freedom is never ending. Thought is always of the past and so it excludes the present, and therefore excludes the new, the creative impulse, everything that is original in the original sense of being original: not a repeat, not a development, but wholly other than what was but which now is not.
This is the same with social or political reform. Reform never gets away from the past, from a reference point, and therefore is never original. For example, if a person or a society is violent, trying not to be violent doesn't change the violence; making a program for non-violence doesn't take away the violence. You are trying to be less violent but never non-violent. But you don't have to try to be non-violent. If you want to, you just stop being violent. The reform keeps the two tied together.
To be without violence, the mind has to be emptied of all thought, which includes the thought of violence, through inquiry into my violence and your violence by each of us. It is to isolate each thought and think it through to the end; this is deconstruction. As Krishnamurti shows, it has to be practiced on oneself, if there is to be change that is wholly original and not cosmetic.
Please feel free to add your cooments and questions and own reflections.
Best wishes
Robert
Good morning everyone,
My in-house themometer has, at last, dropped below 30 degrees! Hope you're doing ok. :-)
A ceaseless inquiry into every movement of thought.
You will have to find out for yourself, and that requires enormous investigation, hard work - much harder work than earning a livelihood, which is mere routine. It requires astonishing vigilance, constant watchfulness, a ceaseless inquiry into every movement of thought. And the moment you begin to inquire into the process of thinking, which is to isolate each thought and think it through to the end, you will see how arduous it is; it is not a lazy man's pleasure.
And it is essential to do this because it is only the mind that has emptied itself of all its old recognitions, its old distractions, its conflicts and self-contradictions - it is only such a mind that has the new, the creative impulse of reality. The mind then creates its own action; it brings into being a different activity altogether, without which mere social reform, however necessary, however beneficial, cannot possibly bring about a peaceful and happy world.
The Collected Works, Vol. X - 255
Here are my reflections.
Krishnamurti's comment that inquiry has to be ceaseless reminds me of Derrida's remark that the work of deconstruction is never ending. This is because the work of freedom is never ending. Thought is always of the past and so it excludes the present, and therefore excludes the new, the creative impulse, everything that is original in the original sense of being original: not a repeat, not a development, but wholly other than what was but which now is not.
This is the same with social or political reform. Reform never gets away from the past, from a reference point, and therefore is never original. For example, if a person or a society is violent, trying not to be violent doesn't change the violence; making a program for non-violence doesn't take away the violence. You are trying to be less violent but never non-violent. But you don't have to try to be non-violent. If you want to, you just stop being violent. The reform keeps the two tied together.
To be without violence, the mind has to be emptied of all thought, which includes the thought of violence, through inquiry into my violence and your violence by each of us. It is to isolate each thought and think it through to the end; this is deconstruction. As Krishnamurti shows, it has to be practiced on oneself, if there is to be change that is wholly original and not cosmetic.
Please feel free to add your cooments and questions and own reflections.
Best wishes
Robert
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Daily Quote, Tuesday August 18, 2009.
Good morning everyone,
A fraction cooler last night!
Today's quote from Krishnamurti continues with the question of the experiencer, the "me."
Without any desire for reward or fear of punishment.
Now, is it possible for the mind to free itself of the observer, of the watcher, of the experiencer, without any motive? Obviously, if there is a motive, that very motive is the essence of the 'me', of the experiencer. Can you forget yourself entirely without any compulsion, without any desire for reward or fear of punishment, just forget yourself? I do not know if you have tried it. Has such a thought even occurred to you, has it ever come to your mind? And when such a thought does arise, you immediately say, 'If I forget myself, how can I live in this world where everybody is struggling to push me aside and get ahead?'
To have a right answer to that question you must first know how to live without the 'me', without the experiencer, without the self-centred activity, which is the creator of sorrow, the very essence of confusion and misery. So is it possible, while living in this world with all its complex relationships, with all its travail, to abandon oneself completely an be free of the things which go to make up the 'me'?
The Collected Works, Vol. X - 254
Here are my reflections.
Krishnamurti was once asked (actually he was asked a lot) what his real purpose was, and he said it was simply to make people completely and unconditionally free. When he say, as he does here, that to be free is act without any desire for reward or fear of punishment, he is speaking to the same question that Patanjali speaks to in the Yoga Sutras: non-attachment.
What ties us to the world, what creates fear, is the desire for recognition for the "I." It turns the "i" into the "I." This is our primary motive; it is the heart of all selfish action: the fear of staying small and not being noticed.
We see everyone in the world doing the same thing and today this leads to the common mantra: "I'm just doing what I need to do for myself." Those who chant such a mantra in their daily conversation can't forget themselves. To forget yourself is to enter a life of service; it is to sacrifice the "me" to love, not just the silly love of sex and infatuation, but the love that is only possible when their is no experiencer.
Best wishes
Robert
Good morning everyone,
A fraction cooler last night!
Today's quote from Krishnamurti continues with the question of the experiencer, the "me."
Without any desire for reward or fear of punishment.
Now, is it possible for the mind to free itself of the observer, of the watcher, of the experiencer, without any motive? Obviously, if there is a motive, that very motive is the essence of the 'me', of the experiencer. Can you forget yourself entirely without any compulsion, without any desire for reward or fear of punishment, just forget yourself? I do not know if you have tried it. Has such a thought even occurred to you, has it ever come to your mind? And when such a thought does arise, you immediately say, 'If I forget myself, how can I live in this world where everybody is struggling to push me aside and get ahead?'
To have a right answer to that question you must first know how to live without the 'me', without the experiencer, without the self-centred activity, which is the creator of sorrow, the very essence of confusion and misery. So is it possible, while living in this world with all its complex relationships, with all its travail, to abandon oneself completely an be free of the things which go to make up the 'me'?
The Collected Works, Vol. X - 254
Here are my reflections.
Krishnamurti was once asked (actually he was asked a lot) what his real purpose was, and he said it was simply to make people completely and unconditionally free. When he say, as he does here, that to be free is act without any desire for reward or fear of punishment, he is speaking to the same question that Patanjali speaks to in the Yoga Sutras: non-attachment.
What ties us to the world, what creates fear, is the desire for recognition for the "I." It turns the "i" into the "I." This is our primary motive; it is the heart of all selfish action: the fear of staying small and not being noticed.
We see everyone in the world doing the same thing and today this leads to the common mantra: "I'm just doing what I need to do for myself." Those who chant such a mantra in their daily conversation can't forget themselves. To forget yourself is to enter a life of service; it is to sacrifice the "me" to love, not just the silly love of sex and infatuation, but the love that is only possible when their is no experiencer.
Best wishes
Robert
Monday, August 17, 2009
Daily Quote, Monday August 17, 2009.
Good morning everyone,
Well, summer is well and truly with us! No need for a weather update today. :-)
Is it possible for me to forget myself?
To put it very simply, is it possible for me to forget myself? Don't say yes or no. We do not know what it means. The sacred books say so-and-so, but all that is mere words, and words are not reality. What is important is for the mind to find out whether that which has been put together - the experiencer, the thinker, the watcher, the 'I' - can disappear, dissolve itself. There must be no other entity who dissolves it.
I hope I am making myself clear. If the mind says, 'The 'I' must be dissolved in order to arrive at that extraordinary state which the sacred books promise', then there is the action of will; there is an entity who wants to arrive, so the 'I' still remains.
The Collected Works, Vol. X - 254
Here are my reflections.
This continues Krishnamurti's discussion from yesterday about what transformation of the self really requires. All too often, we associate transformation with a bigger, better version of ourselves; it's the idea of the Platonic ideal or perfect form become real. But it is never real as it is simply the mind's creation and projection. It is the action of the past, remembered association, a pleasure of an idea that grew into an attachment. The 'I' can disolve only with self-observation, which is a reflection upon the whole process of thought as memory as it constitutes the self as an image. This requires a lot of detailed work; all your relationships, everything you do. As soon as we start to approach this question through sacred books or a guru or a teacher, it is just our thought entertaining itself with bigger thoughts.
Please feel free to leave comments and questions. This blog is for anyone to take part in.
Best wishes
Robert
Good morning everyone,
Well, summer is well and truly with us! No need for a weather update today. :-)
Is it possible for me to forget myself?
To put it very simply, is it possible for me to forget myself? Don't say yes or no. We do not know what it means. The sacred books say so-and-so, but all that is mere words, and words are not reality. What is important is for the mind to find out whether that which has been put together - the experiencer, the thinker, the watcher, the 'I' - can disappear, dissolve itself. There must be no other entity who dissolves it.
I hope I am making myself clear. If the mind says, 'The 'I' must be dissolved in order to arrive at that extraordinary state which the sacred books promise', then there is the action of will; there is an entity who wants to arrive, so the 'I' still remains.
The Collected Works, Vol. X - 254
Here are my reflections.
This continues Krishnamurti's discussion from yesterday about what transformation of the self really requires. All too often, we associate transformation with a bigger, better version of ourselves; it's the idea of the Platonic ideal or perfect form become real. But it is never real as it is simply the mind's creation and projection. It is the action of the past, remembered association, a pleasure of an idea that grew into an attachment. The 'I' can disolve only with self-observation, which is a reflection upon the whole process of thought as memory as it constitutes the self as an image. This requires a lot of detailed work; all your relationships, everything you do. As soon as we start to approach this question through sacred books or a guru or a teacher, it is just our thought entertaining itself with bigger thoughts.
Please feel free to leave comments and questions. This blog is for anyone to take part in.
Best wishes
Robert
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Daily Quote, Sunday August 16, 2009.
Can the experiencer, the self, totally cease?
A mind that would understand that which is true, that which is real, that which is good, or that which is beyond the measure of the mind, give it whatever name you like, must be empty, but not be aware that it is empty. I hope you see the difference between the two. If I am aware that I am virtuous, I am no longer virtuous; if I am aware that I am humble, humility has ceased. Surely that is obvious. In the same way, if the mind is aware that it is empty, it is no longer empty because there is always the observer who is experiencing emptiness.
So is it possible for the mind to be free of the observer, of the censor? After all, the observer, the censor, the watcher, the thinker, is the self, the 'me' that is always wanting more and more experience. I have had all the experiences that this world can give me, with its pleasure and pain, its ambition, greed, envy, and I am dissatisfied, frustrated, shallow.
So I want further experience on another level which I call the spiritual world, but the experiencer continues, the watcher remains. The watcher, the thinker, the experiencer may cultivate virtue; he may discipline himself and try to lead what he considers to be a moral life, but he remains. And can that experiencer, that self, totally cease? Because only then is it possible for the mind to empty itself and for the new, the truth, the creative reality to come into being.
The Collected Works, Vol. X - 254
Here are my reflections on the quote.
Can the "I" (that is to say, you or me) be spiritual?
This is a problem that comes up with a lot of spiritual practice. many people want or say that they are spiritual, but spirituality is a negative experience. Spirituality is only possible with the complete disolution of the ones who experiences spiritual life. This disolution comes in sacrifice; when passion for the self (which is selfishness, even in the pursuit of spirituality, because it is still done for me) becomes passion for others; this passion for others is true compassion. It is only when you have observed the trickery of the self (which is the ego) in your spiritual discourse, which places you at the centre of the experience, can compassion come into being.
Please feel free to comment. It's open to everyone.
Best wishes
Robert
Can the experiencer, the self, totally cease?
A mind that would understand that which is true, that which is real, that which is good, or that which is beyond the measure of the mind, give it whatever name you like, must be empty, but not be aware that it is empty. I hope you see the difference between the two. If I am aware that I am virtuous, I am no longer virtuous; if I am aware that I am humble, humility has ceased. Surely that is obvious. In the same way, if the mind is aware that it is empty, it is no longer empty because there is always the observer who is experiencing emptiness.
So is it possible for the mind to be free of the observer, of the censor? After all, the observer, the censor, the watcher, the thinker, is the self, the 'me' that is always wanting more and more experience. I have had all the experiences that this world can give me, with its pleasure and pain, its ambition, greed, envy, and I am dissatisfied, frustrated, shallow.
So I want further experience on another level which I call the spiritual world, but the experiencer continues, the watcher remains. The watcher, the thinker, the experiencer may cultivate virtue; he may discipline himself and try to lead what he considers to be a moral life, but he remains. And can that experiencer, that self, totally cease? Because only then is it possible for the mind to empty itself and for the new, the truth, the creative reality to come into being.
The Collected Works, Vol. X - 254
Here are my reflections on the quote.
Can the "I" (that is to say, you or me) be spiritual?
This is a problem that comes up with a lot of spiritual practice. many people want or say that they are spiritual, but spirituality is a negative experience. Spirituality is only possible with the complete disolution of the ones who experiences spiritual life. This disolution comes in sacrifice; when passion for the self (which is selfishness, even in the pursuit of spirituality, because it is still done for me) becomes passion for others; this passion for others is true compassion. It is only when you have observed the trickery of the self (which is the ego) in your spiritual discourse, which places you at the centre of the experience, can compassion come into being.
Please feel free to comment. It's open to everyone.
Best wishes
Robert
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Daily Quote, Saturday August 15, 2009.
Here we get to the heart of the relationship between each of us and our personal transformation. There can be no system or program, and hence no guru or teacher from which the program will come. It can only begin with your self-observation. Can you see the difference? To follow a guru is positive inquiry (see yesterday's quote), but to inquire into yourself is a negative inquiry; we always seek the positive because we want help and we want someone to do the transformational work for us. But is this an adequate response?
Robert
Today's Quote:
That light cannot be given to you by another.
Most people, when they are confused, disturbed, want to return to the past; they seek to revive the old religion, to re-establish the ancient customs, to bring back the form of worship practised by their ancestors, and all the rest of it. But what is necessary, surely, is to find out whether the mind that is the result of the past, the mind that is confused, disturbed, groping, seeking - whether such a mind can learn without turning to a guru, whether it can undertake the journey on which there is no guide.
Because it is possible to go on this journey only when there is the light which comes through the understanding of yourself, and that light cannot be given to you by another; no Master, no guru can give it to you, nor will you find it in the Gita or in any other book. You have to find that light within yourself, which means that you must inquire into yourself, and this inquiry is hard work. No one can lead you, no one can teach you how to inquire into yourself. One can point out that such inquiry is essential, but the actual process of inquiring must begin with your own self-observation.
The Collected Works, Vol. X - 254
Here we get to the heart of the relationship between each of us and our personal transformation. There can be no system or program, and hence no guru or teacher from which the program will come. It can only begin with your self-observation. Can you see the difference? To follow a guru is positive inquiry (see yesterday's quote), but to inquire into yourself is a negative inquiry; we always seek the positive because we want help and we want someone to do the transformational work for us. But is this an adequate response?
Robert
Today's Quote:
That light cannot be given to you by another.
Most people, when they are confused, disturbed, want to return to the past; they seek to revive the old religion, to re-establish the ancient customs, to bring back the form of worship practised by their ancestors, and all the rest of it. But what is necessary, surely, is to find out whether the mind that is the result of the past, the mind that is confused, disturbed, groping, seeking - whether such a mind can learn without turning to a guru, whether it can undertake the journey on which there is no guide.
Because it is possible to go on this journey only when there is the light which comes through the understanding of yourself, and that light cannot be given to you by another; no Master, no guru can give it to you, nor will you find it in the Gita or in any other book. You have to find that light within yourself, which means that you must inquire into yourself, and this inquiry is hard work. No one can lead you, no one can teach you how to inquire into yourself. One can point out that such inquiry is essential, but the actual process of inquiring must begin with your own self-observation.
The Collected Works, Vol. X - 254
Friday, August 14, 2009
Daily Quote, Friday August 14, 2009.
Good morning everyone,
After some absence, the blog is back. It's great to be back too.
Here are my reflections on todays quote and then the quote itself is underneath.
I'm going to stay with Krishnamurti's teachings for a while on the blog, so if you keep dropping back every morning you'll see the ideas develop.
Feel free to ask questions if you'd like me to expand a little on anything that catches your interest. Just leave a comment on the blog.
Best wishes
Robert
Krishnamurti uses the phrase, 'the mirror of relationship' and the technqiue of negative inquiry, to identify what is necessary if we are to live at peace. Surprisingly for many people, perhaps, it is not to imagine some peaceful ideal and plan for this; Krishnamurti exposes this as just the creation of thought as memory. This ideal is the path of postiive inquiry, which is simply an avoidance of ourself in our violence and conflict. Peace begins by asking ourselves, why am I looking at this person - with whom I am in relationship - the way I am?; seeing your lack of impartiality, the possibility of just looking and being fully present with them is revealed.
Today's Quote:
The world of relationship.
Now, there is a different way of working, which is to inquire into ourselves and to know exactly what is going on within the field of the mind, not in order to gain some reward, but for the very simple reason that there can obviously be no end to misery in the world as long as the mind does not understand itself.
And, after all, the world in which we live is not the enormous world of political activities, of scientific research, and so on; it is the little world of the family, the world of relationship between two people at home or in the office, between husband and wife, parents and children, teacher and pupil, lawyer and client, policeman and citizen.
That is the little world we all live in, but we want to escape from that world of relationship and go out into an extraordinary world which we have imagined and which does not really exist at all. If we do not understand the world of relationship and bring about a fundamental transformation there, we cannot possibly create a new culture, a different civilization, a peaceful world. So it must start with ourselves.
The world demands an immense, a radical change, but it must begin with you and me; and we cannot bring about a real change in ourselves if we do not know the totality of our world of thoughts, of feelings, of actions, if we are not aware of ourselves from moment to moment. And you will see, if you are so aware, that the mind begins to free itself from all influences of the past.
After all, the mind is now the result of the past, and all thinking is a projection of the past, it is simply a response of the past to challenge, so merely to think of creating a new world will never bring a new world into being.
The Collected Works, Vol. X - 253
Good morning everyone,
After some absence, the blog is back. It's great to be back too.
Here are my reflections on todays quote and then the quote itself is underneath.
I'm going to stay with Krishnamurti's teachings for a while on the blog, so if you keep dropping back every morning you'll see the ideas develop.
Feel free to ask questions if you'd like me to expand a little on anything that catches your interest. Just leave a comment on the blog.
Best wishes
Robert
Krishnamurti uses the phrase, 'the mirror of relationship' and the technqiue of negative inquiry, to identify what is necessary if we are to live at peace. Surprisingly for many people, perhaps, it is not to imagine some peaceful ideal and plan for this; Krishnamurti exposes this as just the creation of thought as memory. This ideal is the path of postiive inquiry, which is simply an avoidance of ourself in our violence and conflict. Peace begins by asking ourselves, why am I looking at this person - with whom I am in relationship - the way I am?; seeing your lack of impartiality, the possibility of just looking and being fully present with them is revealed.
Today's Quote:
The world of relationship.
Now, there is a different way of working, which is to inquire into ourselves and to know exactly what is going on within the field of the mind, not in order to gain some reward, but for the very simple reason that there can obviously be no end to misery in the world as long as the mind does not understand itself.
And, after all, the world in which we live is not the enormous world of political activities, of scientific research, and so on; it is the little world of the family, the world of relationship between two people at home or in the office, between husband and wife, parents and children, teacher and pupil, lawyer and client, policeman and citizen.
That is the little world we all live in, but we want to escape from that world of relationship and go out into an extraordinary world which we have imagined and which does not really exist at all. If we do not understand the world of relationship and bring about a fundamental transformation there, we cannot possibly create a new culture, a different civilization, a peaceful world. So it must start with ourselves.
The world demands an immense, a radical change, but it must begin with you and me; and we cannot bring about a real change in ourselves if we do not know the totality of our world of thoughts, of feelings, of actions, if we are not aware of ourselves from moment to moment. And you will see, if you are so aware, that the mind begins to free itself from all influences of the past.
After all, the mind is now the result of the past, and all thinking is a projection of the past, it is simply a response of the past to challenge, so merely to think of creating a new world will never bring a new world into being.
The Collected Works, Vol. X - 253
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)