KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Roots wrote:

The 3rd chapter of the 1st book of Charles Dickens', 'A Tale of Two Cities', begins thus:

A wonderful fact to behold: that every human creature is constituted to be that profound secret and mystery to every other. A solemn consideration when I enter a great city by night: that every one of those darkly clustered houses, encloses its own secret. That every room in every one of them, encloses its own secret. That every beating heart in the hundreds of thousands of breasts there, is, in some of its imaginings, a secret to the heart nearest to it. Something of the awfulness, even of death itself, is referable to this.  . . . .  It is the inexorable consolidation and perpetuation of the secret that was always in that individuality, and which I shall carry in mine, to my life's end. In any of the burial places in this city through which I pass, is there a sleeper more inscrutable than its busy inhabitants are, in their innermost personality, to me, or as I am to them?

On page 5 of his book, 'To Be Human', K states:

Man has built 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.

Dickens makes an accurate observation and K (incidentally of course) explains said accurate observation.

Anybody interested to comment thereon?

jah man

I see the clear difference that for Dickens, the human being with its accumulated content is seen as a profound secret and mystery, whereas for K and for any person with deep self knowledge, the profound secret and mystery lie behind when all that ignored human content is exposed by oneself to oneself. Of course the short excerpts above do not reveal their whole works and we have to look at what is beyond the quotes above in their works.

Human consciousness is no secret to the one who deeply understands himself and thus is free from it. Only when he is free from the conditioned consciousness then it is not a secret. But as long as he learns it through books written about the subject, it is still a secret to him. The secret is a puzzling confusion that cycles him through fear, pleasure, horror, despair and hope, and with these he cannot approach another human freely, meaning wanting nothing from anybody or anything. Only when each one is free from the old consciousness, relationship is then a very strong, incorruptible net between individuals who are whole, self sufficient, and independent. How do you know about this? It is in yourself, not arrogance, but see how big a gift is given and written in you.

kirsten wrote:

http://i638.photobucket.com/albums/uu11 … ws-mmm.jpg

Ha ha!     . . . .   Love it Kirsten.

Roots wrote:

The 3rd chapter of the 1st book of Charles Dickens', 'A Tale of Two Cities', begins thus:

A wonderful fact to behold: that every human creature is constituted to be that profound secret and mystery to every other. A solemn consideration when I enter a great city by night: that every one of those darkly clustered houses, encloses its own secret. That every room in every one of them, encloses its own secret. That every beating heart in the hundreds of thousands of breasts there, is, in some of its imaginings, a secret to the heart nearest to it. Something of the awfulness, even of death itself, is referable to this.  . . . .  It is the inexorable consolidation and perpetuation of the secret that was always in that individuality, and which I shall carry in mine, to my life's end. In any of the burial places in this city through which I pass, is there a sleeper more inscrutable than its busy inhabitants are, in their innermost personality, to me, or as I am to them?

On page 5 of his book, 'To Be Human', K states:

Man has built 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.

Dickens makes an accurate observation and K (incidentally of course) explains said accurate observation.

To me, the significance of this state of affairs is that although we have a psychology which produces this circumstance (described by Dickens) of consummate division, still we nevertheless are each of us the same in it; which is to say the psychological condition itself is universal and we all partake in it.

If we could more readily recognise this as a matter of fact it could reduce frictions within the forum, advancing more constructive discussion/investigation. This would fascilitate the march on understanding requisite for real growth and development within the membership; which is - I presume to suppose - what many if not most hope for here.

JK: "… Self-knowledge is not a thing to be bought in books, nor is it the outcome of a long painful practice and discipline, but it is awareness, from moment to moment, of every thought and feeling as it arises in relationship. …"

Let me address what I see as the difficulty in *being there* in order to be aware of the rising of responses in relation to what is going on in the world, including my own responses to my risen responses.

I am trying to keep this formal and free from wonk, so it may seem a tad over starched.

I use the term *being there* simply as meaning to be in the position, or condition, to signify the presence of something tagged there as self-knowledge. I cannot *be there* until I am before the fact of the risings.

If I am not before the fact, I am after the fact of the risen, and I am therefore without self-knowledge, which means that I am in the state JK is trying to lead me out of.

How does what he has said in the rest of that paragraph help me if I have not clue one what self-knowledge means? How am I to move from after the fact to before the fact? If I am after the fact, everything I do is after the fact.

See what I mean by that difficulty?

[edit changed nothing; the difficulty is still there]

Last edited by wilbro99 (2012-05-27 15:26:13)

night rises and willy gets the sense that the sun has set.

night wrote:

hi Willy, are we in deep shit again?

"I cannot *be there* until I am before the fact of the risings."

If I understand you correctly above, you are making no distinction [between] the "I" that is built by thought/experience (which actually is not present/there because self-preoccupied), and the awareness/witness that is there in your body and is sensing moment-by-moment the thought and feelings arising (and does not depend on the personal history). Hence the perceived difficulty.

If I understand you correctly, I am making no distinction in identity other than one being behind the curve or with the curve, where the curve is the fold of space we occupy. That's a tad wonky, but the agreement is signed, sealed, and delivered by it.

The premise is, of course, that the movement from lack of self-knowledge to self-knowledge includes all of the bells and whistles that go with such a transformation, and leave that stuff to the movement itself.

That is a difficulty I see JK getting into by speaking to the bells and whistles; a major distraction, if you ask me…

If that does not work, toss it back over the fence, heah?

wilbro99 wrote:

el jefe says that choiceless awareness is a nice topic, and since I want to stay on the good side of el jefe, and since I appear to have made light of JK, let me make amends.

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/about-kris … chings.php

Excerpt: "Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not choice. It is man’s pretence 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."

You see, JK thinks that the goal and means are the same, and that if the goal is choiceless awareness, it follows that the means must be the same, choiceless awareness. There is a doing that both cleans up the act that you are and keeps it cleaned. I think I agree with him. That doing is to be choicelessly aware.

There you go, el jefe, how did I do? A little feedback would be helpful, I mean, there were no cuss words involved, and there is definitely madness to my method, which is why I act as I so. Marlon Brando indeed!

Where did the night errant go?

Dear Mr. Willy,

If you'll permit me, I would just like to say that I've actually very much enjoyed your posts in this thread, and have been meaning to respond earnestly and seriously to what appear to be some very well thought out statements. The same is true regarding what Awareness and Eden have said in immediate response to my post made from our monthly dialogue meeting (in the thread On Behaviour, obviously). In short (too late for that?), I intend to respond to these posts the very next chance I get.

Regards,
el jefe :-)

No shortage of good topics here at the forum.  An endless supply in fact!  Literally.

ehassett wrote:

I have to say that today's Daily Quote posted on the K Network (K Ning) seems especially resonant:


When I can look at you and you can look at me without the image of memory, then there is a relationship

Questioner: What relation has the observer, my observer, to other observers, to other people?

Krishnamurti: What do we mean by that word 'relationship'? Are we ever related to anyone, or is the relationship between two images which we have created about each other? I have an image about you, and you have an image about me. I have an image about you as my wife or husband, or whatever it is, and you an image about me also. The relationship is between these two images and nothing else. To have relationship with another is only possible when there is no image. When I can look at you and you can look at me without the image of memory, of insults, and all the rest, then there is a relationship, but the very nature of the observer is the image, isn't it? My image observes your image, if it is possible to observe it, and this is called relationship, but it is between two images, a relationship which is nonexistent because both are images. To be related means to be in contact. Contact must be something direct, not between two images. It requires a great deal of attention, an awareness, to look at another without the image which I have about that person, the image being my memories of that person how he has insulted me, pleased me, given me pleasure, this or that. Only when there are no images between the two is there a relationship.

Collected Works, Vol. XVII,7,Choiceless Awareness


http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamur … +Quotes%29

it is a very good chosen quote, it meets the nail at its head