KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Tom wrote:

hermann wrote:

Tom wrote:

So perhaps our central psychological problem is something fundamentally very simple: we want to chew over a problem. We want to feel it is something we should work at, resolve and then reap the benefit for having done all of this work. But the truth is that any psychological problem however big or small cannot be handled with words, formulated through concepts, approached and dealt with by anything intellectual. A psychological problem can be seen and finished with, but that's it; that's all there is to it. There is no residual reward, no bonus, no gratification. And yet it seems we want to keep hold of all that side of it; we don't really want to end our problems at all.

Yes, I think we're hooked on that 'residual reward', on the rigmarole of reason and explanation, the noise surrounding the issue. But saying that sort of thing implies that I can see past all that.

No, one can't see past all that; one can only invent a lot of things that one hopes or fears may lie beyond all that. So you can't see past it. And looking to see past it is what we tend to do. We don't seem interested in the first step: just to see all that - but not to see past it.

So what we're hanging on to is our misery, the devil we know.  Not that we actually know it, but we're familiar with it, we're used to it.  We're in its clutches.  Like an addiction.  But chemical addictions one can deal with.  This psychological addiction interferes with any clear thinking.  It's like a hangover.

hermann wrote:

Tom wrote:

hermann wrote:

Yes, I think we're hooked on that 'residual reward', on the rigmarole of reason and explanation, the noise surrounding the issue. But saying that sort of thing implies that I can see past all that.

No, one can't see past all that; one can only invent a lot of things that one hopes or fears may lie beyond all that. So you can't see past it. And looking to see past it is what we tend to do. We don't seem interested in the first step: just to see all that - but not to see past it.

So what we're hanging on to is our misery, the devil we know.  Not that we actually know it, but we're familiar with it, we're used to it.  We're in its clutches.  Like an addiction.  But chemical addictions one can deal with.  This psychological addiction interferes with any clear thinking.  It's like a hangover.

The root of the chemical addiction is psychological addiction. To separate them is a misunderstanding of the problem.

BobD wrote:

The root of the chemical addiction is psychological addiction. To separate them is a misunderstanding of the problem.

I'm not really interested in separating them, rather in understanding why there can be no strategy in dealing with the problem.  A strategy may seem appropriate when we address only the the chemical aspect of addiction, but it won't be of any use in addressing the psychological aspects.

To listen without reservations.  To have no reservations, period.

hermann wrote:

BobD wrote:

The root of the chemical addiction is psychological addiction. To separate them is a misunderstanding of the problem.

I'm not really interested in separating them, rather in understanding why there can be no strategy in dealing with the problem.  A strategy may seem appropriate when we address only the the chemical aspect of addiction, but it won't be of any use in addressing the psychological aspects.

The strategy for addressing the chemical addiction IS to address the psychological condition. They are one and the same. The chemical of choice for an addict wasn't the problem...it was the solution. The solution for undealt with psychological conditions.

hermann wrote:

The solution is in not seeking a solution, and putting aside all reservations is the ending of rules.  But I suspect your readings are serving a purpose of your own making.

Yes, yes, I know. The typical "I am rubber you are glue" retort so typical of hermann. What the hell is your mission here hermann if you think you have all the answers. I bet you are an emotional tyrant to the people in your life. Does anyone other than paul live up to your  expectations? Children are like that. They are always intent on finding the enabling adult that will, rather than tell them the truth, engage in a silly negotiation with the child-thinking that if they answer every stupid and circular little "why" question over and over...the child will eventually understand. But in reality...the child is just spoiled, bored, and looking for attention.  Oh well...I'm sure that symbiotic relationship that you and paul have provides some sort of comfort for the both of you.
Now...tell me sunshine...what purpose are your readings of me serving you at this moment?

So why hang on to that "one purpose". Is any purpose really worth while...or are we simply entertaining ourselves with an idea of purpose? Why let purpose drive our bus? Do we really need it? Can one's existence be pointless? If not...why not? If my existense is pointless it seems it would free up a lot of wasted energy. Not that theres any point to what I am saying.

My cantankerousness is not something that has needed exposure for a long time. I've been with it and aware of it since I was a child. Is it possible to dialogue without the image of cantankerousness hanging over ones head? Or is it yet another prerequisite excuse for avoiding dialogue and/or seeing the product of one selfs overall body of work?

Not judging mind you...just reporting my own image of another.

Tom wrote:

hermann wrote:

What then is the factor that will enable me to let go? Only seeing that I must stop dividing the problem in separate aspects. The problem itself will teach me if I have the patience to listen - to listen with complete empathy. To listen without reservations. To have no reservations, period.

In order to let go, one has to see what it is that one is holding on to; in order to see what one is holding on to, one has to be totally alone with it; and because the 'it' is oneself, one just has to be totally alone. Not isolated; not connected; but alone.

You're not alone with it when you name it. It may be fear, anxiety, boredom, ennui, discontentment, antagonism, loneliness, sorrow - anything - but the moment you name it you are already pushing it away and creating an artificial gap between you and it. But the 'you' and the 'it' are the very same thing.

Now the impulse to name it is enormous. The impulse to name whatever it is that arises within oneself is virtually impossible to resist.

What then is 'alone'?  'All one'?  It is neither 'isolated' nor 'connected'.  So let's not look for a definition.  It's a reality that cannot be named.  It can be seen, but not named.  The naming destroys perception.  The naming separates 'me' from 'it'.  (More later)

hermann wrote:

Tom wrote:

Now the impulse to name it is enormous. The impulse to name whatever it is that arises within oneself is virtually impossible to resist.

So, is it possible to see that naming destroys seeing?  Even the logic?  Naming seems to invite time.  Time is the enemy of seeing.  But the impulse to name promises security.  There is no security, but still we're mesmerized by the promise of security.  So can I actually see that there is no security?  Again, first the logic?

Your statement is incomplete. There is security, just of a different kind, of a dynamic kind. If you see there is no static security in life, then you get a new sense of (dynamic) security, wherein you just keep paying attention rather than rest on laurels.

Last edited by night (2012-03-28 13:23:29)

night wrote:

hermann wrote:

Tom wrote:

Now the impulse to name it is enormous. The impulse to name whatever it is that arises within oneself is virtually impossible to resist.

So, is it possible to see that naming destroys seeing?  Even the logic?  Naming seems to invite time.  Time is the enemy of seeing.  But the impulse to name promises security.  There is no security, but still we're mesmerized by the promise of security.  So can I actually see that there is no security?  Again, first the logic?

Your statement is incomplete. There is security, just of a different kind, of a dynamic kind. If you see there is no static security in life, then you get a new sense of (dynamic) security, wherein you just keep paying attention rather than rest on laurels.

I only meant to say that the the promise of security in the action of naming is false.

Is there anything to be embraced?  Is nothing something that I can embrace?  Or is it something that threatens to consume me?  Then - out of that nothing something new might arise - goodness - without any purpose.

Nothing false about somethingness. You are stuck in a something-nothing duality.