The thinker must come upon himself through his many aspects

Good morning everyone,

Clear sky here this morning!

Here is today's quote:

The “I”, the thinker, the observer, watches his opposing and conflicting thoughts-feelings as though he were not part of them, as though he were above and beyond them, controlling, guiding, shaping. But is not the “I”, the thinker, also these conflicts? Has he not created them? Whatever the level, is the thinker separate from his thoughts? The thinker is the creator of opposing urges, assuming different roles at different times according to his pleasure and pain. To comprehend himself the thinker must come upon himself through his many aspects.

The Collected Works vol IV, p 45.

Here is my reflection.

I think this shows just how easily we get caught in the net of our thoughts, how it is the whole process of thinking that creates us, and until we turn around and look at thinking rather than sending thought-images out away from us to people and things as names and as knowledge, we remain caught in that net. Thought is always out-manoeuvering us like this; we seem always to be a step behind, largely because we fall prey to the need to be secure, because we value knowledge over freedom.

Best wishes

Robert

Daily Quote, Tuesday September 29, 2009.

Good morning everyone,

It looks a bit dark here right now, so no weather report!

Here is today's quote:

The "me" and the other "me".

What do you mean when you use the term “myself”? As you are many and ever changing, is there an enduring moment when you can say that this is the ever “me”? It is the multiple entity, the bundle of memories that must be understood and not seemingly the one entity that calls itself the “me”. We are ever-changing contradictory thoughts-feelings—love and hate, peace and passion, intelligence and ignorance.

Now, which is the “me” in all of this? Shall I choose what is most pleasing and discard the rest? Who is it that must understand these contradictory and conflicting selves? Is there a permanent self, a spiritual entity apart from these? Is not that self also the continuing result of the conflict of many entities? Is there a self that is above and beyond all contradictory selves?

The truth of it can be experienced only when the contradictory selves are understood and transcended. All the conflicting entities which make up the “me” have also brought into being the other “me”, the observer, the analyser. To understand myself I must understand the many parts of myself including the “I” who has become the watcher, the “I” who understands. The thinker must not only understand his many contradictory thoughts, but he must understand himself as the creator of these many entities.

The Collected Works vol IV, p 45

Here are my reflections.

On Sunday at the study group we looked at the question of attending to the right beginning, the starting point, and the idea that there has to be a moment of insight at the beginning, not the end. This right beginning comes when we understand ourselves. This is not understanding the 'true' self or the 'higher' self, because this is simply the creation of the self that does not understand itself, that is not aware of it's history, that has not looked back upon itself.

To do this is to put onself in a state of not knowing and so into a state of readiness to inquire, to learn, and also to love. When when knows or thinks one's knowledge means anything, then inquiry is simply a way to strengthen the self by accumulating more knowledge. There is clearly no humility here, and without humility, again, there can be no love and no affection. When we can observe the many entities that we are, the essential impermanence of the "me", this is a moment of transformation, an awakening of what is intelligent, of that which can appreciate the wholeness of life.

Best wishes

Robert

Daily Quote, Monday September 28, 2009.

Good morning everyone,

I'm finding right now that my weekends are getting quite busy with teaching, and so if you're ok with this, I'm going to pots blog entreies here from Monday - Friday.

The weather is unmentionable right now!

Here is today's quote:

The dualistic process.

Apart from obvious duality as man and woman, black and white, there is an inward psychological duality as the observer and the observed, the one who experiences and the thing experienced. In this division, in which time and space are involved, is the whole process of conflict; you can observe it in yourself. You are violent, that is a fact and you also have the ideological concept of non-violence, so there is duality.

Now the observer says “I must become non-violent” and the attempt to become non-violent is conflict, which is a waste of energy; whereas if the observer is totally aware of that violence—without the ideological concept of non-violence—then he is able to deal with it immediately. One must observe this dualistic process at work within oneself—this division of the “I” and the “not-I”, the observer and the observed.

Talks with American Students, p 111.

Here is my reflection.

As you will have gathered, so much of what Krishnamurti is doing all the time is examining the nature of thinking as a psychological process of 'othering'. This means creating distance, not just between ourselves and other people, but also within ourselves. Both are sources of conflict. Anything that involves thinking involves creating time and space; the act of memory, which is how thought arises, is a movement of time, and the thought itself as an image creates spacial distance.

The basis of all this is the need to know ourselves; so we attach labels to people and things. If you have just met me and you don't know anything about me except for one small thing maybe, you will create an image in your mind about that one thing, maybe it's my occupation, or my hairstyle, or how I dress. In not knowing me, you feel anxious about yourself, who you are; the dualistic process seems to not be working for a few months, so you throw out a label, in an anxious or aggressive way, and that makes you feel better. The other person is 'othered' and now you feel better about who you are. It's very subtle; sometimes it comes over as a joke, but it is really this dualistic process in full operation. This goes on all the time.

Try looking at it in yourself when you meet new people and see. Go into yourself and look at how this unknown person is making you feel. Do you feel some loss of control, a loss of power? You have to look very deeply and be quite humble, otherwise you'll miss it.

Best wishes

Robert

Daily Quote, Friday September 25, 2009.

Good morning here; still no sign of daybreak!

Here is today's quote:

The state of attention.

One begins to discover that in the state of attention, complete attention, there is not the observer, with its old conditioning as the conscious as well as the unconscious. In that state of attention, the mind becomes extraordinarily quiet. The brain cells, though they may react, no longer function psychologically, within a pattern; they become extraordinarily quiet psychologically.

Talks in Europe, 1967

Here is my reflection.

It is only through self-observation, which is also self-awareness - since doing and understanding are inseparable when one is truly serious about what one is doing - that the mind becomes extraordinarily quiet. Otherwise, the mind is 'made' quiet through the so-called techniques of meditation: watching a flame, the breath. None of these make the mind quite. Instead, they require effort, which is what concentration is. It is the effort to narrow the mind, or distract it, so that it goes to sleep. In this effort there is the desire for the mind to be quite, and this desire, of course, is what thought has created. So in the 'meditation of techniques' - which is also traditional meditation teaching - the mind is incredibly active. It is working - furiously - towards an objective, a desire, a result. Such a mind is tied to its old conditioning, and is perpetuating and deepening it.

But with total attention to oneslf, with attention to all that I've been talking about here with regard to self-awareness, the mind becomes silent without effort. You have observed that negative quality in yourself, the conditioning taht you have grown up with, and that is its own benediction. The benediction is that the self-awareness opens the space for the stillness to be revealed. So in true meditation, the mind has this wonderfully expansive quality; it doesn't narrow. A mind that is expansive in this way is not taking in more and more experience, not profiting from the meditation. Instead, it simply has no resistance to the observed, so that the observed is no longer the observed. Therefore, to experience stillness is to experience love: you feel the observer as yourself.

Best wishes

Robert

Daily Quote, Thursday September 24, 2009.

Good morning on what looks like rain on the way today!

Here is today's quote:

Exposing the contents of the unconscious.

Why do we give such deep significance and meaning to the unconscious?—for after all, it is as trivial as the conscious. If the conscious mind is extraordinarily active, watching, listening, seeing, then the conscious mind becomes far more important than the unconscious; in that state all the contents of the unconscious are exposed; the division between the various layers comes to an end.

Watching your reactions when you sit in a bus, when you are talking to your wife, your husband, when in your office, writing, being alone—if you are ever alone—then this whole process of observation, this act of seeing (in which there is no division as the observer and the observed) ends the contradiction.

The Flight of the Eagle, p 28.

Here is my reflection.

This seems to clarify an important point about self-awareness. It is the conscious mind that becomes incredibly alert, alert enough to observe the unconscious. Is this because the conscious mind has relatively little conditioning in comparison to the unconscious? The contradiction taht ends is that between the different parts of ourselves, just as understanding is an act of wholeness which ends fragmentation. The understanding itself being and carrying its own action.

How do you keep the conscious mind active in the way that K is suggesting? He would look at education I think and to perserve a quality of searching but without a goal or any conclusion or desire about the object of the search. It is to keep asking questions, questions about what this is, not how do we get better: like what is life, rather than how can I be happier, why am I miserable. An active mind is always stepping back to ask the bigger, more fundamental, question; grasping the bigger picture, the first question. This is understanding, not knowing; this is the 'what is it' question, not the 'how do I make it better' question. If we can see this, not as an idea but in our own lives, then suffering and frustration will end. Are you frustrated in your life because you are trying to find happiness? To see this in yourself is itself to receive the benediction of love.

Best wishes

Robert

Daily Quote, Wednesday September 23, 2009.

Good morning everyone,

It's looking rather dark and rainy this morning; crossing my fingers for sun!

Here is today's quote:

This faculty will gather momentum.

The more you are aware during the waking hours, the less dreams there are. Dreams are indications of thoughts-feelings, actions not completed, not understood, that need fresh interpretation, or frustrated thought-hope that needs to be fully comprehended. Some dreams are of no importance. Those that have significance have to be interpreted, and that interpretation depends on your capacity of non-identification, of keen intelligence.

If you are deeply aware, interpretation is not necessary, but you are too lazy and so, if you can afford it, you go to a dream specialist; he interprets your dreams according to his understanding. You gradually become dependent upon him; he becomes the new priest, and so you have another problem added to you. But if you are aware even for a brief period, you will see that short, sharp awareness, however fleeting it be, begins to awaken a new feeling, which is not the result of craving but a faculty which is free from all personal limitations and tendencies.

This faculty, this feeling, will gather momentum as you become more deeply and widely aware so that you are aware even in spite of your attention being given to other matters. Though you are occupied with necessary duties and give your attention to daily existence, inward awareness continues; it is as a sensitive photographic plate on which every impression, every thought-feeling is being imprinted to be studied, assimilated, and understood. This faculty, this new feeling, is of the utmost importance for it will reveal that which is eternal.

The Collected Work vol III, pp 219- 220

Daily Quote, Tuesday September 22, 2009.

Good morning everyone,

Today we have Monday's and Tuesday's quotes together:

The unconscious mind is as trivial as the conscious.

A great deal has been written about the unconscious mind, especially in the West. Extraordinary significance has been given to it. But it is as trivial, as shallow as the conscious mind. You can observe it yourself. If you observe you will see that what is called the unconscious is the residue of the race, of the culture, of the family, of your own motives and appetites. It is there, hidden.

And the conscious mind is occupied with the daily routine of life, going to the office, sex, and so on. To give importance to the one or to the other seems utterly sterile. Both have very little meaning, except that the conscious mind has to have technological knowledge in order to earn a livelihood.

This constant battle, both within, at the deeper level, as well as at the superficial level, is the way of our life. It is a way of disorder, a way of disarray, contradiction, misery, and for a mind caught in that to try to meditate is meaningless, infantile.

This Light in Oneself, p 20

The sleeping hours are an intensification of the waking hours.

The more you are conscious of your thoughts-emotions, the more you are aware of your whole being. Then the sleeping hours become an intensification of the waking hours. Consciousness functions even in so-called sleep, of which we are well aware. You think over a problem pretty thoroughly and yet you cannot solve it; you sleep over it, which phrase we often use. In the morning we find its issues are clearer, and we seem to know what to do; or we perceive a new aspect of it which helps to clear up the problem.

How does this happen? We can attribute a lot of mystery and nonsense to it, but what does take place? In that so-called sleep the conscious mind, that thin layer is quiet, perhaps receptive; it has worried over the problem and now, being weary, is still, the tension removed. Then the promptings of the deeper layers of consciousness are discernible and when you wake up, the problem seems to have become clearer and easier to solve.

So the more you are aware of your thoughts-feelings during the day, not for a few seconds or during a set period, the mind becomes quieter, alertly passive, and so capable of responding and comprehending the deeper intimations. But it is difficult to be so aware; the conscious mind is not used to such intensity. The more aware the conscious mind is, the more the inner mind co-operates with it, and so there is deeper and wider understanding.

The Collected Work vol III, p 219.

Here is my reflection.

I think that what K is describing here with sleep also takes place in savasana, the deep relaxation taken at the end of a yoga practice. I have, for a long time, thought that the whole point of the asana practice (yoga postures) which proceeds it is to prepare for such deep relaxation, preparing the body to enter deep relaxation. This, in my experience, is where the deep healing takes place. Deep relaxation seems to be a place of awareness and, therefore, without judgement: to be aware is to be without judgement. One cannot be aware and judge. When one judges it is through the unconscious mind: race, culture, family, all the things that sediment into our psyche and become conditioning. In truth, to know is a form of judgement; it is to label, give a name, and make the impermenent appear suddenly permanent. We accept language and naming and labeling as so natural until it is applied to us and then we feel the restriction, and so resist. To relax deeply is to see without the name.

Best wishes

Robert

Daily Quote, Saturday September 19, 2009.

Good morning everyone,

It's a bit too early to take a guess at the whether but I can see a red sunrise which looks marvelous. Pop outisde and look!

Here is today's quote:

Is there any other part of the mind?

You see, we have only operated so far within the area of thought as knowledge. Right? Is there any other part, any other area of the mind, which includes the brain, which is not touched by human struggle, pain, anxiety, fear, and all the violence, all the things that man has made through thought? The discovery of that area is meditation. That implies the discovery as to whether thought can come to an end, but yet for thought to operate when necessary, in the field of knowledge?

We need knowledge, otherwise we cannot function, we would not be able to speak nor be able to write, and so on. Knowledge is necessary to function, and its functioning becomes neurotic when status becomes all important, which is the entering of thought as the “me”, as status. So knowledge is necessary and yet meditation is to discover, or come upon, or to observe, an area in which there is no movement of thought. Can the two live together, harmoniously, daily?

Talks in Saanen 1974, p 69.

Here is my reflection.

I think this sentense is very helpful and important: "Knowledge is necessary to function, and its functioning becomes neurotic when status becomes all important, which is the entering of thought as the “me”, as status."

Here is the limit of thought; this is where the resposnibility of thought ends. After this further thinking is irresponsible because it separates one person from another. As soon as there is a thought about me instead of how to cook the carrots, for example, there is time and distance (the image of you that my conditioning and memory create). That doesn't matter with the carrots; I need to be somehwat mechanical and repetitive with the carrots, but when I am this way with you and everyone else, then we go on as before, never changing, never looking, never having affection.

I have no status in relation to the carrots but I have so much with you. If I can reduce you to the knowable like the carrots, then "I" feel more secure. What the "I", the "me", fears, is that you won't recognise me, see the "me" I have manufactured, that thought has manufactured, that knowledge as thought as memory, has put together, and so on.

Meditation is to observe this using of knowledge irresponsibly. In meditation, knowledge and understanding, which is the place that K is referring to, can live harmoniosly. This is because understanding is totality, seeing totally.

Best wishes

Robert

Daily Quote, Friday September 21, 2009.

Good morning,

Nice and sunny here in Halifax.

Here is todays; quote:

When the machine takes over the brain.

The brain has infinite capacity; it is really infinite. That capacity is now used technologically. That capacity has been used for the gathering of information. That capacity has been used to store knowledge—scientific, political, social and religious. The brain has been occupied with this. And it is precisely this function (this technological capacity) that the machine is going to take over. When this take-over by the machine happens, the brain—its capacity—is going to wither, just as my arms will if I do not use them all the time.

The question is: If the brain is not active, if it is not working, if it is not thinking, what is going to happen to it? Either it will plunge into entertainment—and the religions, the rituals and the pujas are entertainment—or it will turn to the inquiry within. This inquiry is an infinite movement. This inquiry is religion.

A Timeless Spring, pp 164-165

Here is my reflection.

I have to rush off to a meeting but will come back with a reflection later.

Jackie's comment yesterday was just perfect!

Daily Quote, Thursday September 17, 2009.

Good afternoom everyone,

Sorry for the late post.

Here is today's quote:

Computer and the future of man.

Scientists are now inventing the “ultimate intelligent machine”, a computer which will beat man in every way. If the machine can outstrip man, then what is man? What are you? What is the future of man? If the machine can take over all the operations that thought does now, and do it far swifter, if it can learn much more quickly, if it can compete and, in fact, do everything that man can—except of course look at the beautiful evening star alone in the sky, and see and feel the extraordinary quietness, steadiness, immensity and beauty of it—then what is going to happen to the mind, to the brain of man?

Our brains have lived so far by struggling to survive through knowledge, and when the machine takes all that over, what is going to happen? There are only two possibilities: either man will commit himself totally to entertainment—football, sports, every form of demonstration, going to the temple, and playing with all that stuff—or he will turn inward.

A Timeless Spring, p 164

Here is my reflection.

It does seem a little odd, reading this quote so long after it was written and when computers are no longer a new invention but part of the fabric of our lives. But it does give us a chance to see if Krishnamurti's 'prediction' has come true.

I think that mankind is dividing into two parts: the part that is committed to entertainment, including the entertianment of making money and the entertianment of yoga and becoming enlightened, playing with money and ideals as different sides of the same desire for sensation and stimulation; and then the much smaller part of mankind that is truly turning inwards and exploring the whole question of desire and motive in themselves and their own daily experience.

The former are becoming insensitive to life and not very serious; they are only serious about what interests them, which is not to be serious. To be serious is to be inwardly quiet and alone so that the beauty of life can be seen. It cannot be seen if it is seen through an interest, however idealistic that interest might appear.

The superficial has always triumphed over the deep, power over honesty, entertainment over self-knowledge. Are we in free-fall? Consider your own life deeply; can you see around and in you the demand for entertainment? The sense of don't bother me, just give me this or that, I don't want to think anymore? What might be done now to change all that - an action which doesn't refer back to some self-interest?

Best wishes

Robert

Daily Quote, Wednesday September 16, 2009.

Good morning everyone,

My call on the weather was pretty poor yesterday, so we'll just see how it goes this morning. :-)

Here is today's quote:

The brain is limited, primitive.

The brain has extraordinary capacity, but it has been conditioned and therefore it is limited. It is not limited in the technological world, computers and so on, but it is very, very limited with regard to the psyche. People have said, “Know yourself”—from the Greeks, from the ancient Hindus, and so on. They study the psyche in another but they never study their own psyche.

The psychologists, the philosophers, the experts, never study themselves. They study rats, rabbits, pigeons, monkeys, and so on, but they never say, “I am going to look at myself. I am ambitious, greedy, envious. I compete with my neighbour, with my fellow scientists.” It is the same psyche that has existed for thousands of years, though technologically we are marvellous outwardly. But inwardly we are very primitive, right? So the brain is limited, primitive, in the world of the psyche.

On Mind and Thought, p132.

Here is my reflection.

This quote speaks a little to the whole question of theory that came up at the study group and the blog on Monday. Why is the brain limited? Is it because we are using it to create and maintain the subject/object dichotomy? By studying other brains, like the psyche in psychoanalysis on the brain in neuroscience, they avoid looking at the subject and maintain the object as object and the subject as subject. If you look at the subject as an object, study your own brain and psyche, then the subject is understood and then is not a place of fear and isolating activity.

Best wishes

Robert

Daily Quote, Tuesday September 15, 2009.

Good morning everyone,

Looks like it will be sunny!

Here is today's quote:

Memory is responding all the time.

Observe for yourself how the brain operates. It is the storehouse of memory, of the past. This memory is responding all the time, as like and dislike, justifying, condemning and so on; it is responding according to its conditioning, according to the culture, religion, education, which it has stored. That storehouse of memory, from which thought arises, guides most of our life. It is directing and shaping our lives every minute of every day, consciously or unconsciously; it is generating thought, the “me”, which is the very essence of thought and words.

The Impossible Question, p 71

Here is my reflection.

As the first lines says, the key thing is to observe yourself, observe how your own brain opeartes, not just thinking about the brain in general or the brain of someone you know. If we do this then then will be a change in that brain, for understanding yourself is to transform yourself fundamentally, right there. Everytime you are faced with something or someone, look at how you react, where you see the event or person from. See if it's possible to see your memory working, finding reference points for interpretation in different past experiences. Understanding yourself is to dismantle your memory. When you have understood your memory system then you can stand alone, without the "me", as the feeling of isolation that constantly calls forth memory is no longer there.

Best wishes

Robert

Daily Quote, Monday September 14, 2009.

Good morning everyone,

I took a day off from the blog yesterday. Hope you enjoyed the nice weather and got outside for a while.

Here is today's quote:

Intellect is not the way.

Most of us are so unconcerned with this extraordinary universe about us; we never even see the waving of the leaf in the wind; we never watch a blade of grass, touch it with our hand and know the quality of its being. This is not just being poetic, so please do not go off into a speculative emotional state. I say it is essential to have that deep feeling for life and not be caught in intellectual ramifications, discussions, passing examinations, quoting, and brushing something new aside by saying it has already been said. Intellect is not the way. Intellect will not solve our problems; the intellect will not give us that nourishment which is imperishable.

The intellect can reason, discuss, analyse, come to a conclusion from inferences and so on, but intellect is limited, for intellect is the result of our conditioning. But sensitivity is not. Sensitivity has no conditioning; it takes you right out of the field of fears and anxieties. The mind that is not sensitive to everything about it—to the mountain, the telegraph pole, the lamp, the voice, the smile, everything—is incapable of finding what is true.

The Collected Works vol XI, p 42.

Here is my reflection.

The question of the intellect came up in the study group last night. We looked at Alan Anderson's comment that the word 'theory' comes from the word 'theoria', which means spectacle, and we explored some of the roles the that spectacles play. I talked a little about Disneyland and how it's role is to allow us to discern the difference bwtween what is real and what is not real; so that we can know the real America becuase Disneyland is a fake, a fantasy. The problem is that everyone lives their lives as it they lived in Disneyland. Celebrity makeovers and celebrity big brother, for example. We talked about the feelings of isolation that accompany such identifications and looked at the way that constant text messaging and facebook updating work in the same way - distracting people from their loneliness.

We then linked this back into theory in the intellectual sense of creating theories to explain this and that in academia. Theory relies for its fecundity on the idea that it illuminates and explains the real and is therefore separate from it. But this very separation is an abstraction; it is the past which is then projected onto the real, the facts, experience, etc. Experience is chosen to prove the theory or the theory is so abstract that any thing will fit into it. Moreover, the whole point of resrach soon becomes the attempt to prove the theory. In both cases, Disneyland and academia, it seems that the unreal no longer illuminates the real, but has taken it's place.

As Krishnamurti says, intellect can't give you that deep feeling for life, it can't be simulated by juxtaposing the real with the unreal. That is just more intellectual activity. To feel this great senstivity for a tree, or the breeze, or a person's smile, there must be no fear of being isolated.

Best wishes

Robert

Daily Quote, Saturday September 12, 2009.

Good sunny morning everyone,

Just picked up some terrific Kale from the Farmer's Market!!

Here is today's quote:

Wisdom cannot be replaced by knowledge.

In our search for knowledge, in our acquisitive desires, we are losing love, we are blunting the feeling for beauty, the sensitivity to cruelty; we are becoming more and more specialized and less and less integrated. Wisdom cannot be replaced by knowledge, and no amount of explanation, no accumulation of facts will free man from suffering.

Knowledge is necessary, science has its place; but if the mind and heart are suffocated by knowledge, and if the cause of suffering is explained away, life becomes vain and meaningless.

And is this not what is happening to most of us? Our education is making us more and more shallow; it is not helping us to uncover the deeper layers of our being, and our lives are increasingly disharmonious and empty.

Information, the knowledge of facts, though ever increasing, is by its very nature limited. Wisdom is infinite, it includes knowledge and the way of action; but we take hold of a branch and think it is the whole tree. Through the knowledge of the part, we can never realize the joy of the whole. Intellect can never lead to the whole, for it is only a segment, a part.

Education and the Significance of Life, p 66

Here is my reflection.

How often do you go from class to different class, teacher to different teacher, seeking knowledge; seeking that piece that will give you the understanding of the whole thing? Can't you see that you are just seeking comfort in all your seeking, that it keeps you distracted from what you fear? You already know what you are seeking otherwise you wouldn't seek, so you are just comforting yourself, keeping yourself occupied. Can you now see the difference between being interested in your yoga practice and learning about yourself from observing yourself in it? This self-observation is what I am facilitating in my classes; I'm not offering knowledge. It you want that, go to class and a teacher who seeks comfort. Those teachers are full of knowledge and will talk to you endlessly about what you should do and how to do it. They'll be keen to give you a method to follow. Your taking their method is their comfort. There is a place for method, technique in postures, one doesn't want to break one's neck, but when this takes the place of inquiry into the ways of the self, then the self has become the purpose of the practice. Piling technique upon technique, you keep yourself distracted.

Best wishes

Robert

Daily Quote, Friday September 11, 2009.

Good morning everyone,

Actually, it's late the previous evening as I'm writing this.

Here is today's quote:

Knowledge is not comparable with intelligence.

There is a distinction between intellect and intelligence. Intellect is thought functioning independently of emotion, whereas intelligence is the capacity to feel as well as to reason; and until we approach life with intelligence, instead of intellect alone, or with emotion alone, no political or educational system in the world can save us from the toils of chaos and destruction.

Knowledge is not comparable with intelligence, knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not marketable, it is not a merchandise that can be bought with the price of learning or discipline. Wisdom cannot be found in books; it cannot be accumulated, memorized or stored up.

Wisdom comes with the abnegation of the self. To have an open mind is more important than learning; and we can have an open mind, not by cramming it full of information but by being aware of our own thoughts and feelings, by carefully observing ourselves and the influences about us, by listening to others, by watching the rich and the poor, the powerful and the lowly. Wisdom does not come through fear and oppression, but through the observation and understanding of everyday incidents in human relationship.

Education and the Significance of Life, pp 65-66

Here is my reflection.

I think this is one of the most crucial quotes by Krishnamurti. Here is a direct statement about intelligence: it is the capacity to feel as well as reason. It is therefore about the whole person: the total person, beyond fragmentation. Let me attempt to explain this as I see it. Only intelligence can see life totally: only it can love as well as know, and when there is both then reason can serve feeling - this is key. Feeling gives understanding to reason, so that it is not just repetition and imitation, and when this is understood then reason - thought - can serve feeling. This is how life becomes total: then the understanding and the action are one thing.

This process, which involves no movement of time, is also the abnegation of the self, which is knowledge, thought, and intellect. The self surrenders and acts from the totality of what is. This is feeling and intellect, love and thought. This is what Krishnamurti means, I believe, by perfect order. This is the perfect self and the perfect society. They can't be separated.

Best wishes

Robert

Daily Quote, Thursday September 10, 2009.

Good morning everyone,

Still bright and sunny, if rather chilly. No more short pants after this weekend I expect. :-)

Here is today's quote:

The danger of knowledge.

Psychologically, inwardly, is thought necessary? One must understand this question very deeply. Man, through millennia upon millennia, has been caught in this pattern. And in this pattern there is never freedom, because knowledge, being limited, can never bring freedom. We need absolute freedom to find that which is eternal—obviously—freedom from all attachment, which means from all knowledge.

So knowledge, though necessary in a certain direction, is the most dangerous thing that we have inwardly. We are now accumulating a great deal of knowledge, about the universe, about the nature of everything—scientifically, analytically, archaeologically, and so on. And that knowledge may be preventing us from acting as total, complete human beings.

A Timeless Spring, pp 163-164

Here is my reflection.

This quote is a nice segway into the first audio recording that we'll be listening to in the study group on Sunday. In this, Alan Anderson points out the way that knowledge fragments and multiplies. Gaining more knowledge inevitibly brings more fragmentation: we divide the known (the world, consciousness, etc.) into small and smaller pieces, creating expertise in more and more, and smaller and smaller, areas.

Universities do this and so do corporations, the first in their search for students to take courses and the second as they look products to market. Knowledge is also becoming less concentrated and so you also see this fragmentation taking place across the internet with blogs and websites on some many different things.

If we specialise to get noticed, how can me become complete human beings? Is the link between knowledge and recognition killing us as human beings? Is it stopping us from being in relationship, which first of all means to be alone, or, as K also puts it, an individual: indivisable, unfragmented?

See you on Sunday! :-)

Best wishes

Robert

Daily Quote, Wednesday September 9, 2009.

Good morning everyone,

Yet again, it looks like a lovely day ahead!

Here is today's quote:

Is knowledge necessary in relationship?

Knowledge is absolutely essential. You can add to it, take away from it, but the immensity of knowledge is a human necessity. Now, is knowledge necessary in relationship between human beings? We are related to each other, we are human beings, we live on the same earth, it is our earth, not the Christian or English or Indian earth, it is our earth, the beauty of it, the marvellous riches of it, it is our earth to be lived on.

And what place has thought in relationship? Relationship means to be related, relationship means to respond to each other in freedom, with its responsibility. So what place has thought in relationship? Thought, which is capable of remembering, imagining, contriving, designing, calculating: What place has it in human relationship? Has it any place at all?

On Mind and Thought, pp 44-45

Here is my reflection.

Is knowledge necessary for human beings to live, to cultivate food, build houses, ride bikes? Yes of course, just as it's needed to build bridges and everything else; but is it needed in my relationship with you? And is it possible that having that same knowledge that we use to build a house might be the anti-thesis of that relationship? That in applying the same approach, of working from what is known already, building upon past experience, accummulating precedents, establishing codes, we turn each other into objects, and, even more, turn each other into instruments for some end or result, some objective that improves our position. Even if we are nice to each other, is that not still improving our position, our self-image, as a nice person? Isn't power and ambition part of knowledge? To be in relationship with you, there must be none of "me" there in that relationship; only then can we relate; only then can I look at you without my ambition. Where there is me there is ambition and not relationship.

Best wishes

Robert

Daily Quote, Monday September 8, 2009.

Good morning everyone,

Back to work and the sun looks like it will be coming up soon for another nice day!

Here is today's quote:

Addiction to Knowledge.

Addiction to knowledge is like any other addiction; it offers an escape from the fear of emptiness, of loneliness, of frustration, the fear of being nothing. The light of knowledge is a delicate covering under which lies a darkness that the mind cannot penetrate. The mind is frightened of this unknown, and so it escapes into knowledge, into theories, hopes, imagination; and this very knowledge is a hindrance to the understanding of the unknown.

To put aside knowledge is to invite fear, and to deny the mind, which is the only instrument of perception one has, is to be vulnerable to sorrow, to joy. But it is not easy to put aside knowledge. To be ignorant is not to be free of knowledge. Ignorance is the lack of self-awareness; and knowledge is ignorance when there is no understanding of the ways of the self. Understanding of the self is freedom from knowledge.

Commentaries on Living First Series p 26

Here is my reflection.

We often think of ignorance as the starting place of knowledge. This is the Western approach, where external knowledge, scientific knowledge, knowledge of how to do things, is more valued than self-knowledge - which is what K is talking about with self-awareness. In this Western view, ignorance can be overcome through education and progress, and this is how knowledge serves as an escape. As long as we are being educated we can avoid self-awareness. This is how we are conditioned from childhood. We learn theories, formulaes, hear inspiring talks, etc. but we don't learn about ourselves.

So if ingorance is lack of self-awareness, is stupidity a failure to change when one is aware of oneself? Is it, indeed, possible to be stupid? Would K believe that one could be self-aware, that one could have an understanding of the whole, the conditioning of the self, the pattern of thought, etc. and yet not be free of it? Can we see the danger of ourselves to ourselves, our role in our own misery, and yet stay as we are? Can seeing not be action? Can we really see the what is and yet not act?

This question of studpidity is interesting. To be stupid could be described as to know what to do, know the right thing to do, and yet not do it. Does K allow for stupidity? Is it enough to be aware? Can awareness alone overcome fear?

Best wishes

Robert

Daily Quote, Monday September 7, 2009.

Good bright and sunny morning again,

Here is today's quote:

Ignorance only creates further ignorance.

Until we begin to break down this vicious circle of ignorance which only creates further ignorance, self-reliance cannot bring about release from sorrow. Yet to understand this continuity of ignorance and sorrow, each one must become utterly self-reliant to be able to probe into craving, fear, tendencies, memories, and so on.

Mere self-expression is not creativeness, and to be truly creative, one must understand the process of the self and so be free from it. Through earnest awareness as to what it is that is expressing itself, we begin to understand the limited causes of the past which control the present, and in this strenuous understanding there comes a freedom from the cause of ignorance.

True self-reliance, not the self-reliance for the purpose of mere aggressive expression of the self, can come about only through understanding the process of craving, with its limiting values, fears, and hopes; then self-reliance has great significance, for through one´s own strenuous awareness there is a wholeness, a completeness.

On Relationship

Here is my reflection.

Once again, Krishnamurti delivers a withering critique of the self-empowerment books that crowd the bookshelves: 100 days to self-reliance; 10 steps to financial freedom; the 8 principles of weight loss, etc. This is self-reliance for the expression of the self. What is the craving that drives the purchase of these books, the conformity to these theories, the need to follow a leader, author, expert, master?

Is it not that so many of us are hopelessly confused, confused between what we see in ourselves and what we are told we need to be? Isn't this fragmentation the basis of our confusion? In truth, what we rely upon is the self-empowerment books, as these are our distractions. They absorb our interest, like a toy absorbs the interest of a child. Take away the toy and, like the child, we become restless, anxious, confused. So we seek another distraction. The search for God is just like this. So is the practice of yoga. The yoga postures absorb our interest; we buy books of how to improve our practice, take workshops and classes.

The self-empowerment books keep us fixed in a place where we don't trouble society. We become normalised and regulated in our habits, expectations, and desires. The danger isn't that we want to transcend society, because society can always expand its self-definition. The danger is that we become unhabituated, erratic, unpredictable. That is when we cost society time and money. The whole idea is functional sedation. This is what self-reliance for the purpose of the self is about. So long as we stay focused on the self, all our actions can be predicted and given regular patterns to follow.

This is why Krishnamurti's deconstructive approach, his inquiry into the self, is so important. In this way only, free from habit and regularisation, are we truly self-reliant. The inquiry process is the gift of self-reliance. It means that we are not reliant on the 'self', which is the basis of all dependency and all conformity.

Best wishes

Robert

Daily Quote, Sunday September 6, 2009.

Good bring and sunny morning,

Here is today's quote:

The lack of comprehension of oneself is ignorance.

That is, one must discern how one has come into being, what one is, all the tendencies, the reactions, the hidden motives, the self-imposed beliefs and pursuits. Until each one deeply understands this, there can be no cessation of sorrow, and the confusion of divided action, as economic and religious, public and private, will continue. The human problems that now disturb us will disappear only when each one is able to discern the self-sustaining process of ignorance. To discern needs patience and constant awareness.

Collected Works Vol. 3 1936-1944.

Here is my reflection.

It is this feeling of being divided that leads to what we call 'reform'. Reform is essentially the compromise that we make with ourselves between these fragmented parts. For example, if one part of me wants to change and there is a feeling also within me that I'm not interested in this, then I will reform myself; I won't fundamentally change, I won't let go of the part of me that needs to change. Reform is really the process of staying as one is while acknowledging the need to change. It's a trade off that the two contradictary parts of me are making. The reform 'process' can then go on and on.

If it is you and me who are in contradiction, notice how the same thing happens. We agree to work together. We agree to take a wholistic view, to work to make the whole something more that each of each in our contradiction, but that doesn't end the contradiction. Instead, the whole is merely a distraction from it. Even the agreement to work together confirms that there is a fundamental contradiction between us; agreeing to work together is more of a confirmation of that contradiction than it is a desire to make a change. Nations do this all the time, but it's easiler to see this example in them than it is to look at our relations with others or within ourselves.

What we usually call 'Yoga' is really nothing more than the supression of one part of us by another. This is what the whole practice of concentration, concentrating the mind on a single idea, like God, is all about. This is also the traditional idea of meditation that the Yoga Sutras sets out in it's stages of meditation: withdrawl of the sesnes (which really means supression), concentration (which really comes before sense withdrawl since it is the supression mechanism), and then meditation (which is really the most powerful thought in the mind supressiing the less powerful and now able to enjoy it; it might just be the thought that wants the mind to be still). The part of us that wants to change supresses the part that doesn't. A part of us is ambitious, has goals, wants to achieve something. But isn't that like one state violently intervening in another; a coup d'etat? Or one ethnic group violently repressing another within a state? The whole idea of transcendence in yoga is really supression. The alternative is to reform, which only happens as a compromise when both groups appear to be equally powerful and one group cannot end the contradiction through the threat or use of force. Isn't it the same within us?

Best wishes

Robert

Daily Quote, Saturday September 5, 2009.

Good morning everyone,

Looks like it will be nice!

Here is today's quote:

Is it possible to look at the problem comprehensively, wholly?

The more we think over a problem, the more we investigate, analyse, and discuss it, the more complex it becomes. So is it possible to look at the problem comprehensively, wholly? How is this possible? Because that, it seems to me, is our major difficulty. Our problems are being multiplied - there is imminent danger of war, there is every kind of disturbance in our relationships - and how can we understand all that comprehensively, as a whole? Obviously, it can be solved only when we can look at it as a whole - not in compartments, not divided.

When is that possible? Surely, it is only possible when the process of thinking - which has its source in the 'me', the self, in the background of tradition, of conditioning, of prejudice, of hope, of despair - has come to an end.

Can we understand this self, not by analysing, but by seeing the thing as it is, being aware of it as a fact and not as a theory - not seeking to dissolve the self in order to achieve a result but seeing the activity of the self, the 'me', constantly in action? Can we look at it, without any movement to destroy or to encourage? That is the problem, is it not? If, in each one of us, the centre of the 'me' is non-existent, with its desire for power, position, authority, continuance, self-preservation, surely our problems will come to an end.

The First and Last Freedom - 112

Here is my reflection.

That's simply it. Instead of preserving the "me" by trying to create something better - a result - can we just look at the activities of the "me" - which is all the things that sustains the "me" - which in turn is everything we do. To look is to be wholly impartial; to be impartial is to see the whole - the whole activity of the "me".

Daily Quote, Friday August 4, 2009.

Good morning everyone,

As we get into the long weekend, today looks nice. Just watching the sunrise, having got up early.

Here is today's quote:

Ignorance is the utter lack of self-knowing.

Ignorance exists even though one may have great knowledge, a good education, be sophisticated, have capacity in the exercise of which one achieves fame, notoriety, money. Ignorance is not dispelled by the accumulation of a great many facts and much information—the computer can do all that better than the human mind.

Ignorance is the utter lack of self-knowing. Most of us are superficial, shallow, have so much sorrow and ignorance as part of our lot. Again, this is not an exaggeration, not an assumption, but an actual fact of our daily existence. We are ignorant of ourselves and therein lies great sorrow. That ignorance breeds every form of superstition, it perpetuates fear, engenders hope and despair and all the inventions and theories of a clever mind. So ignorance not only breeds sorrow, but brings about great confusion in ourselves.

Talks with American Students, p 171.

Here is my reflection.

It's interesting to look at how the Eastern view of transformation differs from the West. In the West we used to use the term false-conscuousness a lot, at least in the days when Marxism was widely discussed. There was a failure of the proletariat to see their objective conditions because of the degree of material welfare that capitalism provided. Today, we would call this welfare 'entertaining consumer goods'. The role of transformation laid with the vangard, the intelligensia, who had seen these conditions, had seen the exploitation, etc. and who could teach and lead. That's the classical Western critical approach. It's largely dead now. Instead, within the liberal-capitalist model, there are mainly pressure groups and social movements; reformers not revolutionaries.

Krishnamurti is a revolutionary, but of a different kind than the Marxists. Ignorance is a different concept than false consciousness. It's not brought about by a lack of knowledge, as the Marxists would claim, or being placed in a state of false consciousness. In a sense, for Krishnamurti all consciousness is false, as it is the past, memory, conditioing. If we go from Capitalism to Marxism, we just exchange one plan for another, one method of becoming free for another, one pattern of conditioning for the next, and so on.

This is our idea of progress, and it happens this way precisely because we don't know ourselves. We go superficially from one teacher to another, one style of yoga to another, one self-help program to another, one diet to another, one job to another, one relationship to another, and our drifting from one fad to another is simply to avoid knowing ourselves. We call this exploring life, finding our path, being a on a journey, but the journey and the path are a myth that we create around these distractions. The path and the journey are our conditioned reactions to emptiness. It is out of fear that we remain ignorant of the fact that freedom can only come from total attention to exactly what we are right now, not what we would be if something wasn't getting in the way.

As long as the notion of false conscioness exists, there is the need for time and a teacher. But if all consciousness is false, because it is the past, then there is no need for time or a teacher. That just creates another form of consciousness to replace the old one.

Best wishes

Robert

Daily Quote, Thursday September 3, 2009.

Good morning everyone,

It's taking that little bit longer for the sun to rise now, but it looks like it will be nice again. :-)

Here is today's quote:

Knowledge is always accompanied by ignorance.

A great many scientists in the West have gone into the question of the brain. They say that we are using only a very small part of the whole brain. We can observe whether this is so in ourselves, for it is part of meditation to find out—for ourselves—whether the whole brain or only a very small part is operating.

Now, thought is the response of memory which has been stored through knowledge; knowledge is gathered through experience. That is, experience, knowledge, memory stored in the brain, then thought, then action. This is our pattern of living, and the whole process is based on this movement. Man has done this for the last million years. He has been caught in the cycle, which is the movement of thought.

And within this area he has choice. He can go from one corner to the other and say, “This is my choice, this is my movement of freedom”—but it is always within the limited field of the known. And knowledge is always accompanied by ignorance because there is no complete knowledge about anything. So we are always in this contradictory state: knowledge and ignorance.

A Timeless Spring, p 163.

Here is my reflection.

It goes on from yesterday's conversations, the idea that in knowing the other, rather than understanding the other, we only use a very small part of our brain. The part of the brain that is memory is limited, binded by repetition into a narrow channel, caught in a snapshot of time. So why is it that we only use a small part of our brain? Like yesterday, if we were to see the other in his or her 'otherness' that would be to understand him or her, which in turn would involve a disolution of the 'me'. So we only use a small part of our brain because that it what allows for the continuance of the 'me'.

It is mistake to think of the mind simply becoming large by accumulating more knowledge. To understand the other doesn't come from finding more data about him or her.

So the 'me' can only be as long as the mind is small and only tiny part of the brain is used: knowing instead of understanding. To know something is easy, it just takes memory and a small part of the brain; to understand and use the whole brain is arduous. Only using a small part of the brain barely requires attention at all; using the whole brain requires total attention.

Best wishes

Robert

Daily Quote, Wednesday September 2, 2009.

Good morning everyone,

No need to tell you how bright and sunny it is!

Here is today's quote:

Why do we give importance to thought?

Why has humanity given such extraordinary importance to thought? Is it because it is the only thing we have, even though it is activated through the senses? Is it because thought has been able to dominate nature, dominate its surroundings, has brought about some physical security? Is it because it is the greatest instrument through which man operates, lives and benefits? Is it because thought has made the gods, the saviours, the super-consciousness, forgetting the anxiety, the fear, the sorrow, the envy, the guilt? Is it because it holds people together as a nation, as a group, as a sect? It is because it offers hope to a dark life? Is it because it gives an opening to escape from the daily boring ways of our life? Is it because not knowing what the future is, it offers the security of the past, its arrogance, its insistence on experience? Is it because in knowledge there is stability, the avoidance of fear in the certainty of the known? Is it because thought in itself has assumed an invulnerable position, taken a stand against the unknown?

Letters to the Schools, p 43

Here are my reflections.

It seems to become clear, as we look into thought more and more, that it is its psychological role more than anything else that is important. This means how it works as a way of adapting, compensating, and coping with life in all its uncertain and confusing aspects. All of this centres on the question of knowing. As soon as we know something, give a name to it, pin it down as this or that, then we have used the past to adapt to the present, compensated for our finitude, and coped with the boredom of life in an entertaining comparison of then and now - without seeing that the then has created the now.

It is the feeling of power that thought gives us that sustains it, not because thought is true but because in the thought of the other we also create the self. Thought is invulnerable because it always puts us at the centre of the world; it is dominant because it allows us to dominate, for to know is also to dominate. We are never really all that clear on how we depend upon thought for our existence.

Derrida talks a lot about how action first needs to be legitimated in representation. How a person is represented then justifies the action towards them. Of course, the action and the representation are inseparable; to act in a certain ways towards someone is to represent them. So often we assume that the representation, the knowing, comes first, and the action follows, as if we can't act until we know. But this is just the power of thought. What we consistently fail to see is how the representation is always past representation, recycled experience, which only makes it appear that the thought and the knowing is first.

The tragedy of all this is the way that fixing a representation in the past (or presenting from the past, which is what representation actually is) means that we keep looking at someone in the same way. No matter how much they change with passing years and experience, we keep looking through the lens of the past. We might have one or two things that represent a person for us and we keep looking in the same way. It's tragic partly because it is just to allow us to know ourselves. So fear and uncertainty around being leads to all kinds of conditioning. It's like poison in our relationships.

Best wishes

Robert

Daily Quote, Tuesday September 1, 2009

Good morning everyone,

It looks like it might be nice later on!

Here is today's quote:

Thought must inevitably divide.

Thought is matter; it is in the very structure, in the very cells of the brain, so when the brain operates—whether psychologically, socially or religiously—it must invariably operate in terms of its past conditioning. We see that thought is essential and must function absolutely logically, objectively, impersonally; and yet we see how thought divides.

I am not pushing you to agree, but do you see that thought must inevitably divide? Look what has happened: thought says that nationalism has led to all kinds of war and mischief, so it says, “Let us all be united, form a League of Nations.” But thought is still operating, still maintaining the separation—you , as an Italian, keeping your Italian sovereignty and so on. There is talk about brotherhood and yet the maintaining of separation, which is hypocrisy. It is characteristic of thought to play double games with itself.

The Impossible Question, pp 40-41

Here is my reflection.

In dividing us, thought maintans itself. By looking up and aspiring to more, it preserves what it is. Just as the practice of tolerance, a higher virtue, looks up, it preserves the capacity to be intolerant; and so it is with violence and insensitivity and attention, and so many other things. The practice of self-observation is to see this, which is hard because, as K points out, it's hypocrisy, and that is uncomfortable, intense, and puts us in a poor light. But this is the way through; only the study of the self will take us beyond the self. As we can see, thought of what is not the self - what we are not - merely preserves it. All the highly moral talk looks like a magician's trick.

Best wishes

Robert