PDA

View Full Version : J. Krishnamurti



solomon levi
06-27-2009, 09:35 PM
K wasn't an alchemist. In his own words he wasn't an anything:

"To me there is no path to truth. Truth is not to be understood through any system, through any path. A path implies a goal, a static end, and therefore a conditioning of the mind and heart by that end, which necessarily demands discipline, control, and acquisitiveness. This discipline, this control, becomes a burden. It robs you of freedom and conditions your action in daily life."

But I guess we'd call him a non-dualist or advaitist, which in a way is the strictest observance of the alchemical doctrine that all is one, en to pan.

I feel a compulsion to mention him here, as he was an example of truth, the greatest wisdom that I know; not the truth that comes from a person's observations and opinions, but that objective truth that is seen by any and all when the person(ality - ego) is not.

I wanted to share some things K said about listening, because often the reading of nature and alchemical texts have to be treated in this way:

"It seems to me that what we are discussing is not merely to be understood at the conscious level, but also to be absorbed - if I may put it that way - unconsciously, deep down, without the formulation of definition. It is far more important to listen with the depth of one's whole being, than to indulge in merely superficial explanations. If we can listen in that way, with the totality of one's being, that very listening is an act of meditation.
It is a very difficult problem to listen with the totality of one's being - that is, when the mind not only hears the words, but is capable of going beyond the words. The mere judgement of a conscious mind is not the discovery or the understanding of truth. The conscious mind can never find that which is real. All that it can do is to choose, judge, weigh, compare. But these are not the uncovering of truth. That is why it is very important to know how to listen. When you read a book, you might translate what you read according to your particular tendency, knowledge, or idiosyncrasy, and so miss the whole content of what the author wants to convey; but to understand, to discover, you have to listen without the resistance of the conscious mind which wants to debate, discuss, analyse. These are hindrances when we are dealing with matters which require not mere verbal definition and superficial understanding, but understanding at a much more deeper, more fundamental level. Such understanding, the understanding of truth, depends on how one listens.
I do not know if you have ever tried this. That is, to listen to the words and to find out the truth of any statement that is made by the speaker, not only intellectually, not only with considerable doubt, but also to listen without any resistance - which does not mean accepting, but to listen so profoundly, with great attention, so that the very act of listening brings about a total breaking down of the pattern of the brain."

solomon levi
06-27-2009, 10:02 PM
One thing you must understand to comprehend K's message is his observation that thought, mind and image are all beings of the past, and therefore dead, not living, not life. Mind/thinking is not life/living...

"Man has built in himself images as a fence of security - religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man's thinking, his relationships, and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems, for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. This content is common to all humanity. The individuality is the name, the form, the superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all mankind. So he is not an individual.
Freedom is not a reaction. Freedom is not choice. It is man's pretense that because he has choice, he is free. Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence and activity. Thought is time. Thought is born of experience and knowledge, which are inseperable from time and the past. Time is the psychological enemy of man. Our action is based on knowledge and therefore time, so man is always a slave to the past. Thought is ever limited, and so we live in constant conflict and struggle. There is no psychological evolution. When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts, he will see the division between the thinker and the thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation, which is insight without any shadow of the past or time. This timeless insight brings about a deep radical mutation in the mind.
Total negation is the essence of the positive. When there is negation of all those things that thought has brought about psychologically, only then is there love, which is compassion and intelligence."


These quotes are from the book "To be human", but there are a lot of books in his name and they are all pretty profound and awakening. He never wrote books, but people transcribed notes of his talks and made books of them.

So I guess we can't call him a non-dualist in the strict sense because he takes the view that something can be done, although not by the "I". Anyway, no need for labels. But an effort, but not really effort, is made to view life without images, because they are all preconceived and thus life will never be new when viewed through an image. It's an amazing thing, to look without images, because then you are not there, for you are also a past, a collection of memories/images.

So if you wish to apply this to alchemy, the reason we can read all those books and still not know what the first matter is is because we are reading with our minds/images, which are the past, and obviously our past doesn't know what the first matter is, nor how to achieve the Donum Dei. So we obviously have to think something we've never thought before, which is not truly thinking, but insight, which occurs in the silent pause between thinking.

Ghislain
06-28-2009, 07:05 AM
I Agree

Play_Dough
06-28-2009, 07:57 AM
If Krishnamurti was (is) advocating anything it seems, to me, that it is 'Zen'.

'Zen' is the 'pathless path' and results in the emptying of consciousness and the liberation from 'the self'.

It (Zen) may not be accurately considered to be 'a path', and 'zen' is empty of any goal, however, the 'trick' is that to be free of any 'goal' is tantamount to being free of preferences which implies being 'free-of-self'.

So, because each of us is unique (inner configuration) there is no 'one size fits all' "Path". But Krishnamurti subtly forces us to realize that in order to 'get free of ourselves' and to 'empty our consciousness' that some type of 'method' is necessary. Even if the utilization of the 'method' is only temporary.

(Socratic question) - So, to get free-of-self, and to 'empty consciousness' how does one go about it? Or what can one 'not do' to jump-start the required 'reversal' of self-infatuation and bondage (cultural or personal)?

My initial response to my own questions is to 'embrace what-is' and 'to get free of preferences'. Those are two 'tools' that begin the process of the erosion of self.

After that there is a path but 'the path' opens before you (a unique path) and is not chosen beyond the initial choice of getting free of self.

All of religion does not 'save us' but simply prepares us 'to take the trip' of surrendering in order to get free of preferences, addictions, dysfunctional social conditioning, cultural teachings, and to ultimately get free of 'the self'. To be free of the 'self' is to become 'Mercurial', and being 'mercurial' gives us 'direct access' to 'the messages from the Gods'.

.

Ghislain
06-28-2009, 08:16 AM
Could Krishnamurti be talking of Tao?

Tao translates as 'way', 'path'.

It is often referred to as 'the nameless', because neither it nor its principles can ever be adequately expressed in words. It is conceived, for example, with neither shape nor form, as simultaneously perfectly still and constantly moving, as both larger than the largest thing and smaller than the smallest, because the words that describe shape, movement, size, or other qualities always create dichotomies, and Tao is always a unity. Source: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao)

Is Zen not an amalgamation of Taoist and Buddhist philosophies? India meets China

PD once we are free of self who travels the path? Just an observation.

Ghislain
06-28-2009, 08:48 AM
Are we on the path and the destination is the realisation of unity? Is that the Philosophers Stone?

Unity = all the wealth that exists = eternal life. Another observation.

solomon levi
06-28-2009, 08:53 AM
I agree with the correlations between K, Zen and Tao.
Any pathless path or gateless gate would suggest this.
The only thing is, once we find a title or label, we know something
about it, and then it is no longer Tao/Zen.
There are also correlations between the Egyptian "intelligence of the heart"
and the Toltec "second attention" and "stopping the internal dialogue",
and Gurdjieff's "self-remembering" and split arrow of attention,
and Harding's "headless way"...

solomon levi
06-28-2009, 09:41 AM
(Socratic question) - So, to get free-of-self, and to 'empty consciousness' how does one go about it? Or what can one 'not do' to jump-start the required 'reversal' of self-infatuation and bondage (cultural or personal)?

My initial response to my own questions is to 'embrace what-is' and 'to get free of preferences'. Those are two 'tools' that begin the process of the erosion of self.
.

This is the paradox. Any system or path will give one something to do, whereas the strict observance of non-dualism would deny this possibility
due to the simple fact that doing something manifests the doer and thus seperation.
When we ask, "what can be done?", it is the seperate "I" who asks this,
and as long as the seperate "I" asks questions, nothing will change.
The "I" cannot resolve this. IT is this. ;)
The "I" cannot resolve itself, because it will still be there as the resolver.

So the strict non-dualist tells us to do nothing - "you are already that", "this is all there is".

But if we're not content with that, IMO Castaneda's (Toltec) "controlled folly" is the next best thing...
"stalking", "believing because one has to believe"... he comes the closest to joining the two worlds IMO.
Not that others don't aim at the same union, but the Toltecs seem to do it with more
style and humor, never taking themselves too seriously.
This is just my opinion/preference. I've studied alot of "systems" and this
is my distillation of all that knowledge. But I've studied some things deeper than
others, so my knowledge, of course, is not complete. For example, the Gnostics have alot of it right as well, but they are really trying to get out of
here, considering themselves alien, and strangers to this place. I've certainly related to this at times, but it doesn't seem quite balanced.
The Toltecs are also wanting to dart past the Eagle, but they love the earth and
their life and their fellow human beings, even the petty tyrants...
They don't seperate themselves from the world, yet they don't believe in the world either -
it is but a description, one of many.

So if we are going to suggest things to do, I'd recommend a path of deconstruction by observation...
seeing how our personal realities correspond precisely to what we tell ourselves in that internal dialogue;
and that that is programmed information from our parents, peers and figures
of authority, that may or may not have had our freedom in their best interest.
So we must start anew. Inquire into everything. Every item we believe...
why do we believe it? Is it true? Where did the belief come from? Is it mine
or someone else's hand-me-down?
And who is this inner dialogue that doesn't stop talking? And who is it talking to? Who is listening? Am I one, or two? Who is this "I"?
Then you will find that the "I" doesn't exist, save as a collection of knowledge, memories, thoughts, gravitating around an illusory center.
And when the lack of a center is seen, you'll be "one the all".
But for how long? Mustn't the unmanifest manifest again? :D
I don't know. Some people have experiences; for some others there is an
apparently permanent alteration. Perhaps that's where alchemy plays a role... a triple fixation... a tempering by fire...
???

(One of the books I'm currently reading is "Radiant Mind - awakening unconditioned awareness" by Peter Fenner.
Based in Buddhist non-dual teachings, it provides methods of grasping and lengthening moments of unconditioned awareness.
One of the primary works is recognizing and deconstructing fixations. I'll have to read more to give my opinion of it,
but I like his website and his talks on youtube, etc. Simply reading some dialogues he has had with people attending his workshops
has led me into moments of awareness.)

Play_Dough
06-28-2009, 08:19 PM
edited.....



So if we are going to suggest things to do, I'd recommend a path of deconstruction by observation...
seeing how our personal realities correspond precisely to what we tell ourselves in that internal dialogue;
and that that is programmed information from our parents, peers and figures
of authority, that may or may not have had our freedom in their best interest.
So we must start anew. Inquire into everything. Every item we believe...
why do we believe it? Is it true? Where did the belief come from? Is it mine
or someone else's hand-me-down?
And who is this inner dialogue that doesn't stop talking? And who is it talking to? Who is listening? Am I one, or two? Who is this "I"?

solomon levi - Your entire post is brilliant.
Both you and Plato advocate 'inquiry' regarding the contexts of consciousness.

Thank you, you are a very wise man.

.

Play_Dough
06-28-2009, 09:07 PM
Could Krishnamurti be talking of Tao?

Tao translates as 'way', 'path'.

It is often referred to as 'the nameless', because neither it nor its principles can ever be adequately expressed in words. It is conceived, for example, with neither shape nor form, as simultaneously perfectly still and constantly moving, as both larger than the largest thing and smaller than the smallest, because the words that describe shape, movement, size, or other qualities always create dichotomies, and Tao is always a unity. Source: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao)

Is Zen not an amalgamation of Taoist and Buddhist philosophies? India meets China

PD once we are free of self who travels the path? Just an observation.

Ghislain, Good Morning!

Quote "once we are free of self who travels the path?" end quote

That is a beautiful 'zen koan'.

I shall offer you my opinion, based upon limited experience, intuition, research, consulting with the wisdom of solomon levi, the Tao, zen, and some other stuff.

There are 3 fundamental 'paths' (with infinite subsets):
1) the path 'out' (dissolution) and
2) the path 'in' (coagulation )
3) the status-quo (maintains what is)

The Tao speaks of being 'without desire' in order to gain knowledge of the mystery (the path out), and 'to have a desire' to observe how 'the tao' flows to fulfill that desire (the path in).

Your question can be restated to say.... I know who I am when I coagulate, but who am I when I dissolve?

The answer is 'The One'.

When 'the one' formulates a desire, then 'an energetic' is created which (begins to) makes that desire 'real' (manifest).
'The One' then exits eternity/timelessness and enters into a temporal adventure and actually 'becomes it' (the desire manifest) temporarily forgetting it's (The One) true nature.

That desire/adventure remains as 'status quo' until consciously changed by the adventurer (absent programmed obsolescence). The adventure continues, lifetime after lifetime after lifetime, beyond the veil of time. And often without the conscious knowledge of the adventurer.

The 'way out' is to reprogram consciousness by creating a new adventure (dissolve and then re-coagulate). It's like an actor preparing for a new role.

The powers wielded by consciousness can and do create 'compelling illusions'.

I have my own theory which I have named "The Abstract Entity".
"The Abstract Entity" is "The One" without accessories.

The Abstract Entity is all that remains after everything 'extractable' has been abstracted (removed). The Abstract Entity is 'pure consciousness'.
'Consciousness' is a requirement because without it there can be no observer. The 'pure' part indicates 'no-self' and 'no desire'.

That is (pure consciousness) 'who' we are after all else has been dissolved.

Then, forming another desire, the 'pure consciousness' then coagulates 'a self' that then participates in the new adventure/desire.... and, once again, becomes something (coagulates).

Shakespeare's "The World is a Stage" populated by 'players', kind of captures the idea.

The 'magic' (miraculous) is so compelling that we actually believe that we are 'our forms' (adds great drama) and we assume the limitations of those 'forms'.

Once we are completely free of self there is no 'path' until we formulate a new desire.
Then we enter the path 'in'.

To be free of desire starts the dissolution process and opens the path 'out'.

All of it (everything) is 'The One' wearing many masks, experiencing many many adventures, sometime remembering and sometimes forgetting it's (our) true nature.

.

solomon levi
06-28-2009, 11:51 PM
:D
No. You're brilliant.
;)

I love that you call it the abstract entity.
My russian friend refers to it as the abstract as well.
It's a wonderful word.

sol