Saturday, September 3, 2011
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Arun Shourie`s Tryst with J. Krishnamurti
A Mother’s Heart
Years passed. J.Krishnamurti, the great philosopher and teacher, was visiting Delhi. As usual, Ram Nathji had met him in the past, and had a way to get to him now. Krishnaji was staying at the house of Mrs. Pupul Jayakar- a lady who had done great service to Indian handicrafts, a close friend of Mrs. Indira Gandhi and one of Krishnaji’s closet disciples.
Ram Nathji sent me to interview Krishnaji. We talked of the state of affairs, and the rest. Krishnaji’s point was responsibility. Unless each of us owned responsibility for what he as an individual was doing, the state of affairs would just go one hurtling the way it was doing. Krishnaji asked me about Anita. The conversation turn to Adit.
Bring the young man around, Krishnaji said as I got up to take leave of him. His mother is as welcome, but she will not come.
I was to go back two days later. I asked Anita to come along also. She refused-nothing happens, she had concluded, our hopes are raised again and again, and again and again they are shattered.
I went with Adit. Krishnaji talked. Adit was in my lap. From time to time, Krishnaji would fondle his hair and smile at him. A noble child, he said.
‘Your wife did not come?’
‘No, sir. She ahd work at school.’
Krishnaji just looked at me.
‘Come again. Bring the child. Ask your wife to come too.’ This sequence was repeated twice. Krishnaji was most kind to Adit. Sometime during the conversation, he would remark, ‘So, your wife didn’t come?’ I would repeat some transparently cooked-up excuse.
‘Well, I am going to Benares day after. As you know, I have spent my life debunking godmen. I do not believe in miracles. But some people say they have been healed by these hands’ – he looked at his elegant hands and turned them out. ‘ Come to Benares. We have a good place there-completely peaceful. Stay with us. Bring the child along. Your wife too is welcome, if she will come. If I can do anything at all for this child, I would love to. In any case, come again before I go.’
I was truly touched. Such a great man. One of the greatest teachers our times. Prepared to go so far out of his way for our little Adit.
As I used to do after every visit, I told Anita what had transpired. I implored her, ‘Please come along. Every time he asks about you. He is such a kind and such an elegant man… Come, for my sake.’
The three of us went to meet Krishnaji.
This time Krishnaji made me sit on a chair opposite him-holding Adit in my lap. He made Anits sit on the sofa with him. He took her hand in his, and kept it in his hand.
The conversation proceeded. Suddenly, one moment, Krishnaji turned fully to Anita and asked, ‘How do you feel about your son?’
‘He is a happy child,’ Anita replied.
‘I didn’t ask what kind of a child he is. I asked “How do you feel about your child?”’ Krishnaji said with some emphasis.
‘He is our life.’
‘I didn’t ask what he is to you,’ Krishnaji said in a raised voice, almost scolding Anita, ‘I ASKED YOU WHAT DO YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR CHILD,’ his voice even higher, the pauses between each word, minority, stern, unyielding.
Anita, who had not cried even once in the years since Adit’s birth, burst into tears. It was as if a missile had pierced a dam. She wept uncontrollably. Krishnaji kept her hand in his, and let her continue crying.
‘See?’ Krishnaji turned to me, still holding her hand, ‘I told you, you don’t know a mother’s heart.’ And there I was-thinking that I had my mother’s caring heart.A life-lesson, a live-lesson that I have never forgotten.
Excerpts from Does He Know a Mother`s heart (Arun Shourie)
Years passed. J.Krishnamurti, the great philosopher and teacher, was visiting Delhi. As usual, Ram Nathji had met him in the past, and had a way to get to him now. Krishnaji was staying at the house of Mrs. Pupul Jayakar- a lady who had done great service to Indian handicrafts, a close friend of Mrs. Indira Gandhi and one of Krishnaji’s closet disciples.
Ram Nathji sent me to interview Krishnaji. We talked of the state of affairs, and the rest. Krishnaji’s point was responsibility. Unless each of us owned responsibility for what he as an individual was doing, the state of affairs would just go one hurtling the way it was doing. Krishnaji asked me about Anita. The conversation turn to Adit.
Bring the young man around, Krishnaji said as I got up to take leave of him. His mother is as welcome, but she will not come.
I was to go back two days later. I asked Anita to come along also. She refused-nothing happens, she had concluded, our hopes are raised again and again, and again and again they are shattered.
I went with Adit. Krishnaji talked. Adit was in my lap. From time to time, Krishnaji would fondle his hair and smile at him. A noble child, he said.
‘Your wife did not come?’
‘No, sir. She ahd work at school.’
Krishnaji just looked at me.
‘Come again. Bring the child. Ask your wife to come too.’ This sequence was repeated twice. Krishnaji was most kind to Adit. Sometime during the conversation, he would remark, ‘So, your wife didn’t come?’ I would repeat some transparently cooked-up excuse.
‘Well, I am going to Benares day after. As you know, I have spent my life debunking godmen. I do not believe in miracles. But some people say they have been healed by these hands’ – he looked at his elegant hands and turned them out. ‘ Come to Benares. We have a good place there-completely peaceful. Stay with us. Bring the child along. Your wife too is welcome, if she will come. If I can do anything at all for this child, I would love to. In any case, come again before I go.’
I was truly touched. Such a great man. One of the greatest teachers our times. Prepared to go so far out of his way for our little Adit.
As I used to do after every visit, I told Anita what had transpired. I implored her, ‘Please come along. Every time he asks about you. He is such a kind and such an elegant man… Come, for my sake.’
The three of us went to meet Krishnaji.
This time Krishnaji made me sit on a chair opposite him-holding Adit in my lap. He made Anits sit on the sofa with him. He took her hand in his, and kept it in his hand.
The conversation proceeded. Suddenly, one moment, Krishnaji turned fully to Anita and asked, ‘How do you feel about your son?’
‘He is a happy child,’ Anita replied.
‘I didn’t ask what kind of a child he is. I asked “How do you feel about your child?”’ Krishnaji said with some emphasis.
‘He is our life.’
‘I didn’t ask what he is to you,’ Krishnaji said in a raised voice, almost scolding Anita, ‘I ASKED YOU WHAT DO YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR CHILD,’ his voice even higher, the pauses between each word, minority, stern, unyielding.
Anita, who had not cried even once in the years since Adit’s birth, burst into tears. It was as if a missile had pierced a dam. She wept uncontrollably. Krishnaji kept her hand in his, and let her continue crying.
‘See?’ Krishnaji turned to me, still holding her hand, ‘I told you, you don’t know a mother’s heart.’ And there I was-thinking that I had my mother’s caring heart.A life-lesson, a live-lesson that I have never forgotten.
Excerpts from Does He Know a Mother`s heart (Arun Shourie)
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Cognitive Illusion : A Human Compulsion
Human beings are constantly victim of cognitive illusions. In the book Predictably Irrational the author Dan Ariely has distinctly brought out the follies in human behaviour spanning the entire spectrum of our life. Classified as Behavioural Economics it challenges the assumption that we are rational and how our daily life is an example of cognitive illusions. As such this is not surprising as we are wired from primitive times for survival and hence the brain is developed for survival. Thus under physical threat of life we have appropriate life reponses. It is so cleverly shown in the Man vs Wild series on National Geographic channel. However when it comes to psychological assessment of situation we tend to behave irrationally.We have a tendency to do relative perception which lead to comparative analysis. Visual optical illusion is the most common example relative perception.This same tendency lead us to compare between two individuals or two religion or two races or ethnic groups invariably leading to conflict. As a consumer we do not do our math right and end up making wrong choices. As society or head of the nation or head of the family or head of a religious organisation we fail to display rational behaviour. such irrationality maybe cleverly packaged. A best example can be narrated from Paulo coehlo's book Devil and Miss Prym. In this instance the head of church was willingly ready to put an innocent citizen on gallows at the behest of devil who promised lure of gold for the village. The choice was to be made between life a village prostitute vs pots of gold for village development. And the choice was made to sacrifice the village prostitute at the altar of greed well couched with religious justifications and charitable intentions. This is just a fictional account of wrong choice that human make but reality is not far from stupid irrationalities on daily basis.
(http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code.html ) Dan Ariely in his book writes more about wrong choices in economic sphere of activity but it has widespread ramifications. It can be interpretated in any other dimension of human behaviour. For instance the most glaring example of cognitive illusions is the havoc wrought by belief systems. It invariably leads to comparision and thereby a need to reassert one particular belief system as superior vs the rest. The outcome is wellknown for centuries in the form of war. Belief system and fundamentalism are two sides of the coin. A siamese twin?
Einstein once did comment that the universe maybe infinite but human stupidity is certainly so.
It is now very very clear. Human behaviour can never be trusted to be free,fair,accurate,just and ,rational. Individuals may either betray disoriented behaviour or portray exemplary behaviour. But there is no certainty and hence trusting human behaviour to be ideal by default is not a good idea. At the same time distrusting it as always disoriented is cynicism. Its a challenge and therefore a slightly off the hook distant observervation of human behaviour is a good idea. Its a mirror in which u see your reflection and what are your co-ordinates in the system provided you arenon judgemental about yourself.
In his famous dialogue with Dr David Bohm, J. Krishnamurti emphatically said " I doubt if man is rational. He added , mankind has taken a wrong turn on his journey of life and right turn is always possible . Quit relative perception. Quit comparison.
(http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code.html ) Dan Ariely in his book writes more about wrong choices in economic sphere of activity but it has widespread ramifications. It can be interpretated in any other dimension of human behaviour. For instance the most glaring example of cognitive illusions is the havoc wrought by belief systems. It invariably leads to comparision and thereby a need to reassert one particular belief system as superior vs the rest. The outcome is wellknown for centuries in the form of war. Belief system and fundamentalism are two sides of the coin. A siamese twin?
Einstein once did comment that the universe maybe infinite but human stupidity is certainly so.
It is now very very clear. Human behaviour can never be trusted to be free,fair,accurate,just and ,rational. Individuals may either betray disoriented behaviour or portray exemplary behaviour. But there is no certainty and hence trusting human behaviour to be ideal by default is not a good idea. At the same time distrusting it as always disoriented is cynicism. Its a challenge and therefore a slightly off the hook distant observervation of human behaviour is a good idea. Its a mirror in which u see your reflection and what are your co-ordinates in the system provided you arenon judgemental about yourself.
In his famous dialogue with Dr David Bohm, J. Krishnamurti emphatically said " I doubt if man is rational. He added , mankind has taken a wrong turn on his journey of life and right turn is always possible . Quit relative perception. Quit comparison.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Universal Consciousness: A quantum World Reality!
My belief in interconnected of reality at subatomic ( quanta) level is based on substantial progress made by modern science on the same. To name a few EPR experiment by einstein, Bell's theorem, Allain Aspects experiments on seperated photon particle and Karl Pribram's theory of holonomic brain model. David Bohm called it implicate order. Einstein called it Ghosts! All these scientists have proved with experiments that there is non local intelligence which is simultaneous information transmission between two seperated subatomic particles . This information is transmitting at a rate faster than velocity of light. It is unmediated action on two seperated bodies.This moots the idea of a holograhic world in whch a whole subdivided also contains all the information of whole. In other words every part is as good as whole as in a hologram. In one experiment sets of mice seperated geographically across continents were monitored for their behavior. It was found that new learning techniques unknown to the species imparted to one set of mice was found to be absorbed by the other seperated group as well as their next generation. Similarly certain behaviour in rats were continued despite scraping off certain portions of brain in a gradual manner. A japanese researcher Dr. Masaru Emoto has shown images of water crystals to establish the effect of environment on it. Water Crystals under peaceful conditions are beautiful and harmonius whereas water crystals under stressed environment such as war display hazy structure. Thus there is universal consciousness and the whole idea of independent objective reality irrespective of the observer itself is a question.
Alain Aspect experiments in Quantum Physics involved splitting light photons. Two paths of light were created out of one. One of the paths of light photons was reoriented using a polarizing instrument. Both paths were then measured for the polarized orientation. It was assumed that one of the paths would retain the reorientation and the other path would be unchanged. No matter how many times the experiment was conducted or the measuring instruments set up, the same result was obtained. BOTH paths of light had been changed.
The results had a dynamic influence on theorists. At one time, it was assumed that you could not have action at a distance; contact of some type had to be responsible for change. The Aspect experiments changed that belief. Today, it is believed that when subatomic particles are involved, they retain their affinity for near subatomic particles no matter how far they are separated. Distance on a subatomic level cannot be treated the same as distance in our visible world.
What is Non-Locality>?
To accommodate the non-locality results described in the Aspect experiment and elsewhere, universal consciousness has to be non-local, but capable of interacting with the consciousness of the observer. To permit the observer to interact with both non-local universal consciousness and at the same time to be a part of the world we think of as real, some believe that there are components of the brain that are like the measuring instruments of an experiment and a second lot of components that act like highly coherent quantum systems. A coherent quantum system is the kind seen with superconductivity, superfluidity, and laser systems.
What is the definition of ‘local’ and ‘non-local’?
Our reality consists of local and non-local phenomenon. All things in space and time tend to be local. Nick Herbert in his book Quantum Reality explains "Yet there are things that we know exist and are real that are not local, for example a thought, love, insight, etc. Many of these things are on a psychological and spiritual level."
Mr. Herbert explains that: “… non-local is an unmediated action-at-a-distance.” A non-local interaction jumps from body A to body B without touching anything between A and B. Most people deny its existence because it does not seem to make sense.
Examples of non-local interactions are intuition, synchronicity (simultaneous occurrences), and spontaneous
Finally, no one can say that consciousness is confined to just the brain, or is local. It has to have a non-local origin, for it is not bound to space and time, nor is it physical .
What was Bell’s explanation of non-local reality?
In 1964, an Irishman named John Stewart Bell developed a mathematical proof that supported a nonphysical part of the universe. This theoretical physicist stated that any model explaining the universe entirely as local or as physical reality is incomplete for it does not include the non-local part. He also stated that there is an interconnectedness to everything in the universe. This proof was called the Bell Theorem and it was verified by many scientific experiments. Larry Dossey, M.D., points this out in his book Recovering the Soul “Whatever model of reality we wind up with in physics … it must be nonlocal… No local model of reality can explain the type of world we live in …
Simply put, the Bell theorem proves that there is another reality (non-local), which can be referred to as Spirit, beyond our current, physical (local) reality. Non-local reality interacts with our reality and is the source and cause of the physical existence or reality. The nonphysical part of the universe is the definitive proof that all science was seeking. Bell’s Theorem proves another realm exists that theology has talked about, but was unable to prove in a theoretical or empirical (experimental) sense. It means we can no longer consider objects as independently existing entities that can be localized in well-defined regions of spacetime.
Einstein ,however was not convinced about Quantum Theory as well as Bell`s theorem.Einstein worked until his death to find the 'missing link' in quantum theory that would disprove Neils Bohr's concept of random occurrence of probabilities.He emphatically stated many times that "God does not play dice", reiterating his firm belief in an underlying plan or consciousness within the quantum possibilities. In order to disprove Quantum he conducted an experiment now famously known as EPR.The EPR experiment was based on two equal or twin particles. These tiny particles, called A and B, composed a system traveling in opposite directions from each other .Einstein and his colleagues knew they could measure some aspects of the first particle A, such as its position and momentum. From this measurement, they could predict the outcomes of the second particle B traveling in the opposite direction, while not going near the second particle.
What happened here is now very strange. Instead of disproving Neil Bohr’s school of thought that said that any measurement on A also effects B or vice versa, the EPR experiment proved it. Whatever particle was not measured reacted to the changes on the other particle. If the measured particle A began to spin in the opposite direction, instantaneously particle B also began to spin in the direction of particle A.
Since there was no force or energy transferred between the two particles, there seemed to be some form of information transferred from one particle to another.
How does the Bell Theorem prove non-local reality? To resolve this problem the Bell theorem proves that there was instant communication between these two particles. This means a message would have to travel faster than the speed of light that is 186,000 miles /sec. between them. According to the Einstein special theory of relativity this was impossible. Bell showed there is non-local communication between these two particles. This communication is nonphysical and currently science has no explanation for it.
Einstein did not know how to explain this phenomenon and objected to the ‘ghostly action at a distance .Some quantum physicists allow that the "ghosts" are a component of a "universal consciousness." Some call this "consciousness" the "ground of all being." In a short article that follows this, Werner Heisenberg refers to a "central order." David Bohm calls it as quantum potential and implicate order.He was fascinated by the interconnectedness of matter, energy and quantum events. The emerging science of holography gave him a new model for understanding the interconnectedness he documented in his experiments. Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order, published in 1980, did more than just link the various facets of science together, it transfigured them into a new way of looking at reality.
"One of Bohm's most startling assertions is that the tangible reality of our everyday lives is really a kind of illusion, like a holographic image. Underlying it is a deeper order of existence, a vast and more primary level of reality that gives birth to all the objects and appearances of our physical world in much the same way that a piece of holographic film gives birth to a hologram. Bohm calls this deeper level of reality the implicate (which means enfolded) order, and he refers to our own level of existence as the explicate, or unfolded, order"
Scientists brought up in the Eastern world appear to have less of a problem with a term like "universal consciousness." Some, such as Amit Goswami, Professor of Physics at the University of Oregon, occasionally use the word "God," as being the true reality of "universal consciousness.Two thousand five hundred agao greek philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus continued this philosophical probe into the fabric of nature and man, with some similar, but more holistic, conclusions. He thought it "wise to agree that all things are one"
Conclusion in Einsteins words:
A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty" einstein
Alain Aspect experiments in Quantum Physics involved splitting light photons. Two paths of light were created out of one. One of the paths of light photons was reoriented using a polarizing instrument. Both paths were then measured for the polarized orientation. It was assumed that one of the paths would retain the reorientation and the other path would be unchanged. No matter how many times the experiment was conducted or the measuring instruments set up, the same result was obtained. BOTH paths of light had been changed.
The results had a dynamic influence on theorists. At one time, it was assumed that you could not have action at a distance; contact of some type had to be responsible for change. The Aspect experiments changed that belief. Today, it is believed that when subatomic particles are involved, they retain their affinity for near subatomic particles no matter how far they are separated. Distance on a subatomic level cannot be treated the same as distance in our visible world.
What is Non-Locality>?
To accommodate the non-locality results described in the Aspect experiment and elsewhere, universal consciousness has to be non-local, but capable of interacting with the consciousness of the observer. To permit the observer to interact with both non-local universal consciousness and at the same time to be a part of the world we think of as real, some believe that there are components of the brain that are like the measuring instruments of an experiment and a second lot of components that act like highly coherent quantum systems. A coherent quantum system is the kind seen with superconductivity, superfluidity, and laser systems.
What is the definition of ‘local’ and ‘non-local’?
Our reality consists of local and non-local phenomenon. All things in space and time tend to be local. Nick Herbert in his book Quantum Reality explains "Yet there are things that we know exist and are real that are not local, for example a thought, love, insight, etc. Many of these things are on a psychological and spiritual level."
Mr. Herbert explains that: “… non-local is an unmediated action-at-a-distance.” A non-local interaction jumps from body A to body B without touching anything between A and B. Most people deny its existence because it does not seem to make sense.
Examples of non-local interactions are intuition, synchronicity (simultaneous occurrences), and spontaneous
Finally, no one can say that consciousness is confined to just the brain, or is local. It has to have a non-local origin, for it is not bound to space and time, nor is it physical .
What was Bell’s explanation of non-local reality?
In 1964, an Irishman named John Stewart Bell developed a mathematical proof that supported a nonphysical part of the universe. This theoretical physicist stated that any model explaining the universe entirely as local or as physical reality is incomplete for it does not include the non-local part. He also stated that there is an interconnectedness to everything in the universe. This proof was called the Bell Theorem and it was verified by many scientific experiments. Larry Dossey, M.D., points this out in his book Recovering the Soul “Whatever model of reality we wind up with in physics … it must be nonlocal… No local model of reality can explain the type of world we live in …
Simply put, the Bell theorem proves that there is another reality (non-local), which can be referred to as Spirit, beyond our current, physical (local) reality. Non-local reality interacts with our reality and is the source and cause of the physical existence or reality. The nonphysical part of the universe is the definitive proof that all science was seeking. Bell’s Theorem proves another realm exists that theology has talked about, but was unable to prove in a theoretical or empirical (experimental) sense. It means we can no longer consider objects as independently existing entities that can be localized in well-defined regions of spacetime.
Einstein ,however was not convinced about Quantum Theory as well as Bell`s theorem.Einstein worked until his death to find the 'missing link' in quantum theory that would disprove Neils Bohr's concept of random occurrence of probabilities.He emphatically stated many times that "God does not play dice", reiterating his firm belief in an underlying plan or consciousness within the quantum possibilities. In order to disprove Quantum he conducted an experiment now famously known as EPR.The EPR experiment was based on two equal or twin particles. These tiny particles, called A and B, composed a system traveling in opposite directions from each other .Einstein and his colleagues knew they could measure some aspects of the first particle A, such as its position and momentum. From this measurement, they could predict the outcomes of the second particle B traveling in the opposite direction, while not going near the second particle.
What happened here is now very strange. Instead of disproving Neil Bohr’s school of thought that said that any measurement on A also effects B or vice versa, the EPR experiment proved it. Whatever particle was not measured reacted to the changes on the other particle. If the measured particle A began to spin in the opposite direction, instantaneously particle B also began to spin in the direction of particle A.
Since there was no force or energy transferred between the two particles, there seemed to be some form of information transferred from one particle to another.
How does the Bell Theorem prove non-local reality? To resolve this problem the Bell theorem proves that there was instant communication between these two particles. This means a message would have to travel faster than the speed of light that is 186,000 miles /sec. between them. According to the Einstein special theory of relativity this was impossible. Bell showed there is non-local communication between these two particles. This communication is nonphysical and currently science has no explanation for it.
Einstein did not know how to explain this phenomenon and objected to the ‘ghostly action at a distance .Some quantum physicists allow that the "ghosts" are a component of a "universal consciousness." Some call this "consciousness" the "ground of all being." In a short article that follows this, Werner Heisenberg refers to a "central order." David Bohm calls it as quantum potential and implicate order.He was fascinated by the interconnectedness of matter, energy and quantum events. The emerging science of holography gave him a new model for understanding the interconnectedness he documented in his experiments. Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order, published in 1980, did more than just link the various facets of science together, it transfigured them into a new way of looking at reality.
"One of Bohm's most startling assertions is that the tangible reality of our everyday lives is really a kind of illusion, like a holographic image. Underlying it is a deeper order of existence, a vast and more primary level of reality that gives birth to all the objects and appearances of our physical world in much the same way that a piece of holographic film gives birth to a hologram. Bohm calls this deeper level of reality the implicate (which means enfolded) order, and he refers to our own level of existence as the explicate, or unfolded, order"
Scientists brought up in the Eastern world appear to have less of a problem with a term like "universal consciousness." Some, such as Amit Goswami, Professor of Physics at the University of Oregon, occasionally use the word "God," as being the true reality of "universal consciousness.Two thousand five hundred agao greek philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus continued this philosophical probe into the fabric of nature and man, with some similar, but more holistic, conclusions. He thought it "wise to agree that all things are one"
Conclusion in Einsteins words:
A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty" einstein
Sunday, March 20, 2011
In A New World
For a moment lets conjure up a scenario where the whole world has come to an end and a new world has energed wherein human beings exists as they did before on the planet earth but there is a total amnesia about the past. Therefore there is no memory left of the past. Not even the residual vestiges. Here you are on a ground where there are no Christians with no memeory of Jesus Christ. Nor there are any Hindus with the image of krishna and concept of soul . Similarly for the rest of the belief system s.This is a world where there is no division based on religion amongst its inhabitants. There are neither believers nor non believers because the question of belief itself is non existent. Remeber what we said in the begining ,its a new world with no residual memory of the past. Then how would have one described existence? Here is a quote from J. Krishnamurti which would most aptly fit the bill. Remeber this description would have evolved without any J. Krishnamurti around there in that new world;
"…is there an area in the human brain, or in the very nature and structure of a human being, not merely in the outer world of his activities but inwardly, deep in the vast quiet recesses of his own brain, something that is not the outcome of memory, not the movement of a continuity?"… "There is most certainly, definitely, an area where the past doesn’t cast a shadow, where time, the past or the future or the present has no meaning."… "You can’t ascend through knowledge; there must be an end to knowledge for the new to be. New is a word for something which has never been before. And that area cannot be understood or grasped by words or symbols; it is beyond all remembrances."
Lets what he has to further say .....
There can be no thought if there is total amnesia. Right? But fortunately, or unfortunately we are not in a state of amnesia. And one wants to find out what thought is, what place it has in life. You understand? So one begins to examine thinking. So what is thinking? Thinking takes place as a reaction to memory. Obviously. Memory responds to a challenge, to a question, to an action, or responds in relationship to something, or to an idea, to a person. Right? You see all this in life.
So what is thinking, what is thought, how does thought exist in the human mind? So one asks then, what is memory? You understand? What is memory? Memory is you have trodden on some insect that has bitten you. That memory, that pain is registered and stored in the brain, that pain, which becomes a memory, it is not actual pain. That pain is over but the memory remains. So next time you are careful. So there is experience as pain, which has become knowledge, and that knowledge, experience is memory, that memory responds as thought. Right? That memory is thought. And knowledge, however wide, however deep, however extensive, must always be limited. Right? There is no complete knowledge. I don't know if you are following all this.So thought is always partial, limited, divisive because in itself it isn't complete, in itself it can never be complete; it can think about completeness. You understand? It can think about totality, whole, but it's not, thought itself is not whole. So whatever it creates philosophically, religiously, it is still partial, limited, fragmentary, because knowledge is part of ignorance. You understand, sir? I don't know if you understand this. As knowledge can never be complete it must always go hand in hand with ignorance. Right? That's logical, rational.
And if one understands the nature of thought, and understands what concentration is, then thought cannot attend because attention is giving all energy - you understand? - without any restraint. I wonder if you understand this. If you are listening now, I hope you are, if you are listening and attending, what takes place? There is no 'you' attending. Right? There is no centre that says, 'I must attend'. You are attending because it is your life, your interest. If you are not interested, lying down in the sun, saying, well I'll listen partly, that's a different matter. But if you are serious and giving attention you will soon find out all your problems, all that is gone - at least for the moment.So to resolve problems is to attend. I wonder if you have got it. You understand this? It's not a trick! (Laughs)Source - Jiddu Krishnamurti Fourth Public Question & Answer Meeting in OjaiFrom
"…is there an area in the human brain, or in the very nature and structure of a human being, not merely in the outer world of his activities but inwardly, deep in the vast quiet recesses of his own brain, something that is not the outcome of memory, not the movement of a continuity?"… "There is most certainly, definitely, an area where the past doesn’t cast a shadow, where time, the past or the future or the present has no meaning."… "You can’t ascend through knowledge; there must be an end to knowledge for the new to be. New is a word for something which has never been before. And that area cannot be understood or grasped by words or symbols; it is beyond all remembrances."
Lets what he has to further say .....
There can be no thought if there is total amnesia. Right? But fortunately, or unfortunately we are not in a state of amnesia. And one wants to find out what thought is, what place it has in life. You understand? So one begins to examine thinking. So what is thinking? Thinking takes place as a reaction to memory. Obviously. Memory responds to a challenge, to a question, to an action, or responds in relationship to something, or to an idea, to a person. Right? You see all this in life.
So what is thinking, what is thought, how does thought exist in the human mind? So one asks then, what is memory? You understand? What is memory? Memory is you have trodden on some insect that has bitten you. That memory, that pain is registered and stored in the brain, that pain, which becomes a memory, it is not actual pain. That pain is over but the memory remains. So next time you are careful. So there is experience as pain, which has become knowledge, and that knowledge, experience is memory, that memory responds as thought. Right? That memory is thought. And knowledge, however wide, however deep, however extensive, must always be limited. Right? There is no complete knowledge. I don't know if you are following all this.So thought is always partial, limited, divisive because in itself it isn't complete, in itself it can never be complete; it can think about completeness. You understand? It can think about totality, whole, but it's not, thought itself is not whole. So whatever it creates philosophically, religiously, it is still partial, limited, fragmentary, because knowledge is part of ignorance. You understand, sir? I don't know if you understand this. As knowledge can never be complete it must always go hand in hand with ignorance. Right? That's logical, rational.
And if one understands the nature of thought, and understands what concentration is, then thought cannot attend because attention is giving all energy - you understand? - without any restraint. I wonder if you understand this. If you are listening now, I hope you are, if you are listening and attending, what takes place? There is no 'you' attending. Right? There is no centre that says, 'I must attend'. You are attending because it is your life, your interest. If you are not interested, lying down in the sun, saying, well I'll listen partly, that's a different matter. But if you are serious and giving attention you will soon find out all your problems, all that is gone - at least for the moment.So to resolve problems is to attend. I wonder if you have got it. You understand this? It's not a trick! (Laughs)Source - Jiddu Krishnamurti Fourth Public Question & Answer Meeting in OjaiFrom
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Comparison ,Competetion and Attention
Questioner: Is there no difference between aggression and competition? They look different to me right now.
Jiddu Krishnamurti: Madame, please, I'll go into it, don't bother about that. Either you write the questions, I'll answer them, or let me talk a little about this.
You can see what aggression does. Right? You are aggressive, I am aggressive for the same job, the same this, that, the other. And so we are fighting each other all along the way - right? - both psychologically and physically. And we carry on. That's part of our pattern, part of our social education, and to break that pattern we say we must exercise our will. Right? Which is another aggression. I don't know if you follow this. Right? Right? Are you following this, sir? When I exercise my will, will is another form of 'I must'. You understand. That's another form of aggression.
So can you have an insight into aggression? You have understood my question, or is it too difficult? You understand my question sir? That is, I am aggressive - thank god I am not, I have never been, I don't want to be (laughs) - suppose I am aggressive and that's the pattern from childhood, that is the education, the mother, the father, and the society, the boys around me, are all aggressive, and I see, and I like that, it gives me pleasure. And I accept it and I also become aggressive. Right? Then as I grow up somebody shows me the nature of aggression, what it does in society, how competition is destroying human beings. It is not only the speaker is saying this, scientists are beginning to say this - so perhaps you will accept the scientists. So you explain it very carefully, all the reason, the cause, and the destructive nature of competition, which is to compare, always comparing. You understand?
Now a mind that doesn't compare at all - you understand? - is a totally different kind of mind. It has got much more vitality. So one explains all this, and yet we go on being aggressive, competitive, comparing ourselves with somebody, always something much greater, not with the poorer, with always something greater. So there is this pattern established, this cadre, this framework, and in which the mind is caught. And listening to it you say, 'I must get out of it, I must do something about it', which is what? Another form of aggression. You understand? I wonder if you see that. So can you, can we have an insight into aggression? You follow? Not explanations, not the remembrance of all the implications of it and so on and so on, which is constant examination, then coming to a conclusion, and acting according to that conclusion. That's not insight. Whereas if you have immediate insight into it - you understand? - then you have broken the whole pattern of aggression.
That is, sir, we compare - don't we? - both physically - you have long... I wish I could look as nice as you look, or psychologically, there is constant comparison. Which means what? I don't know if you have gone into this. To compare oneself with somebody else, greater, more intelligent, bright, and so on, is to what? Deny what you are and change what you are. I wonder if you understand this. Am I making this clear? Look, I compare myself with you and I say you are awfully clever, all that, and in that comparison I say, by Jove, I realise I am very dull. Right? You are following this? But if I have no comparison, am I dull? I begin then to discover the things 'as is'. I wonder if you see.
So what we shall do with the way we are living? Sorry to bring it home. What shall we do? You will attend meetings, other forms of other kinds of meetings, discussions, philosophers explaining their philosophy, the latest psychologist, non-Freudian, non-this, and non-that, but the latest, he will explain to you. You understand? We are doing this all the time, moving from one thing to another, and that's called an open mind. But we never say look, this is so, I am like this, let me find out why am I like this. Why I have wounds, psychological bruises - you understand? - why. Why do I live with them? I don't know if you are following all this. But reading somebody like, books of... books, attending Krishnamurti's talks, and then quoting back, it is so... I know all this by heart! (Laughter) I have been at this for sixty years and more, so you don't have to quote to me. But if you don't quote, and find out for yourself - you understand, sir? - there is greater energy, more fun, more alive, you become much more alive.
This is a good question because it affects us. That is, what is attention, what is the relationship of thought to attention, is there in attention freedom? Right? Is this a question that affects us? That is, we know what concentration is. Right? Most of us do from childhood we are trained to concentrate, and the implications of that concentration is narrowing down all energy to a particular point, and holding to that point. Right? A boy in a school is looking out of the window, looking at all the birds and the trees and the movement of the leaves, or the squirrel climbing up the tree, and the educator says, 'Look, you are not paying attention, concentrate on the book.' Right? 'Listen to what I am saying', and so on and so on. Which is what? Go into it, sir. Which is what? You are making concentration far more important than attention. That is, if the boy is looking out of the window watching that squirrel, I would help him to watch - if I am the educator - I would help him to watch that squirrel completely. You follow? Watch it. Watch the movement of the tail, the mouth, the nozzle, how its claws are, everything, watch it. Then if he learns to watch that attentively he will pay attention to the beastly book! (Laughter) You follow what I am saying? So there is no contradiction.
So attention is a state of mind in which there is no contradiction. Right? There is no entity, or a centre, or a point, which says, I must attend. In that state there is no wastage of energy. Whereas in concentration there is always the controlling process going on: I want to concentrate on that page but thought wanders off, and then you pull it back, the constant battle going on. Whereas in attention, if you go into it, it is very simple really. When somebody says, 'I love you', and he means it, you are attending, you don't say, do you love me because I look nice, or I have money, or sexual, or this or that - you follow what I am saying? So attention is something totally different from concentrationp
And this attention, the questioner asks, what is the relationship of this attention to thought? Right? None, obviously. I don't know if you follow this. Concentration has a relationship to thought because thought directs: I must learn, I must concentrate in order to control myself. Right? Thought then gives a direction from one point to another point. Whereas in attention thought has no place - you attend.
And is there a gap between attention and thought. Good lord. Sir, as we explained the other day, if you once understand, if one once has a grasp of the whole movement of thought you wouldn't put this question. You understand sir? I am not... I'll answer it, but first one has to, understand what thought is. You understand? Not somebody tell you what thought is. But to see what thought is, how it comes into being. And if you will go with me, I will do it again, we will go into it.
There can be no thought if there is total amnesia. Right? But fortunately, or unfortunately we are not in a state of amnesia. And one wants to find out what thought is, what place it has in life. You understand? So one begins to examine thinking. So what is thinking? Thinking takes place as a reaction to memory. Obviously. Memory responds to a challenge, to a question, to an action, or responds in relationship to something, or to an idea, to a person. Right? You see all this in life. So what is thinking, what is thought, how does thought exist in the human mind? So one asks then, what is memory? You understand? What is memory? Memory is you have trodden on some insect that has bitten you. That memory, that pain is registered and stored in the brain, that pain, which becomes a memory, it is not actual pain. That pain is over but the memory remains. So next time you are careful. So there is experience as p
ain, which has become knowledge, and that knowledge, experience is memory, that memory responds as thought. Right? That memory is thought. And knowledge, however wide, however deep, however extensive, must always be limited. Right? There is no complete knowledge. I don't know if you are following all this.
So thought is always partial, limited, divisive because in itself it isn't complete, in itself it can never be complete; it can think about completeness. You understand? It can think about totality, whole, but it's not, thought itself is not whole. So whatever it creates philosophically, religiously, it is still partial, limited, fragmentary, because knowledge is part of ignorance. You understand, sir? I don't know if you understand this. As knowledge can never be complete it must always go hand in hand with ignorance. Right? That's logical, rational. And if one understands the nature of thought, and understands what concentration is, then thought cannot attend because attention is giving all energy - you understand? - without any restraint. I wonder if you understand this. If you are listening now, I hope you are, if you are listening and attending, what takes place? There is no 'you' attending. Right? There is no centre that says, 'I must attend'. You are attending because it is your life, your interest. If you are not interested, lying down in the sun, saying, well I'll listen partly, that's a different matter. But if you are serious and giving attention you will soon find out all your problems, all that is gone - at least for the moment.
So to resolve problems is to attend. I wonder if you have got it. You understand this? It's not a trick! (Laughs)
Source - Jiddu Krishnamurti Fourth Public Question & Answer Meeting in Ojai
From krishnamurtidiscourses.blogspot.com
Jiddu Krishnamurti: Madame, please, I'll go into it, don't bother about that. Either you write the questions, I'll answer them, or let me talk a little about this.
You can see what aggression does. Right? You are aggressive, I am aggressive for the same job, the same this, that, the other. And so we are fighting each other all along the way - right? - both psychologically and physically. And we carry on. That's part of our pattern, part of our social education, and to break that pattern we say we must exercise our will. Right? Which is another aggression. I don't know if you follow this. Right? Right? Are you following this, sir? When I exercise my will, will is another form of 'I must'. You understand. That's another form of aggression.
So can you have an insight into aggression? You have understood my question, or is it too difficult? You understand my question sir? That is, I am aggressive - thank god I am not, I have never been, I don't want to be (laughs) - suppose I am aggressive and that's the pattern from childhood, that is the education, the mother, the father, and the society, the boys around me, are all aggressive, and I see, and I like that, it gives me pleasure. And I accept it and I also become aggressive. Right? Then as I grow up somebody shows me the nature of aggression, what it does in society, how competition is destroying human beings. It is not only the speaker is saying this, scientists are beginning to say this - so perhaps you will accept the scientists. So you explain it very carefully, all the reason, the cause, and the destructive nature of competition, which is to compare, always comparing. You understand?
Now a mind that doesn't compare at all - you understand? - is a totally different kind of mind. It has got much more vitality. So one explains all this, and yet we go on being aggressive, competitive, comparing ourselves with somebody, always something much greater, not with the poorer, with always something greater. So there is this pattern established, this cadre, this framework, and in which the mind is caught. And listening to it you say, 'I must get out of it, I must do something about it', which is what? Another form of aggression. You understand? I wonder if you see that. So can you, can we have an insight into aggression? You follow? Not explanations, not the remembrance of all the implications of it and so on and so on, which is constant examination, then coming to a conclusion, and acting according to that conclusion. That's not insight. Whereas if you have immediate insight into it - you understand? - then you have broken the whole pattern of aggression.
That is, sir, we compare - don't we? - both physically - you have long... I wish I could look as nice as you look, or psychologically, there is constant comparison. Which means what? I don't know if you have gone into this. To compare oneself with somebody else, greater, more intelligent, bright, and so on, is to what? Deny what you are and change what you are. I wonder if you understand this. Am I making this clear? Look, I compare myself with you and I say you are awfully clever, all that, and in that comparison I say, by Jove, I realise I am very dull. Right? You are following this? But if I have no comparison, am I dull? I begin then to discover the things 'as is'. I wonder if you see.
So what we shall do with the way we are living? Sorry to bring it home. What shall we do? You will attend meetings, other forms of other kinds of meetings, discussions, philosophers explaining their philosophy, the latest psychologist, non-Freudian, non-this, and non-that, but the latest, he will explain to you. You understand? We are doing this all the time, moving from one thing to another, and that's called an open mind. But we never say look, this is so, I am like this, let me find out why am I like this. Why I have wounds, psychological bruises - you understand? - why. Why do I live with them? I don't know if you are following all this. But reading somebody like, books of... books, attending Krishnamurti's talks, and then quoting back, it is so... I know all this by heart! (Laughter) I have been at this for sixty years and more, so you don't have to quote to me. But if you don't quote, and find out for yourself - you understand, sir? - there is greater energy, more fun, more alive, you become much more alive.
This is a good question because it affects us. That is, what is attention, what is the relationship of thought to attention, is there in attention freedom? Right? Is this a question that affects us? That is, we know what concentration is. Right? Most of us do from childhood we are trained to concentrate, and the implications of that concentration is narrowing down all energy to a particular point, and holding to that point. Right? A boy in a school is looking out of the window, looking at all the birds and the trees and the movement of the leaves, or the squirrel climbing up the tree, and the educator says, 'Look, you are not paying attention, concentrate on the book.' Right? 'Listen to what I am saying', and so on and so on. Which is what? Go into it, sir. Which is what? You are making concentration far more important than attention. That is, if the boy is looking out of the window watching that squirrel, I would help him to watch - if I am the educator - I would help him to watch that squirrel completely. You follow? Watch it. Watch the movement of the tail, the mouth, the nozzle, how its claws are, everything, watch it. Then if he learns to watch that attentively he will pay attention to the beastly book! (Laughter) You follow what I am saying? So there is no contradiction.
So attention is a state of mind in which there is no contradiction. Right? There is no entity, or a centre, or a point, which says, I must attend. In that state there is no wastage of energy. Whereas in concentration there is always the controlling process going on: I want to concentrate on that page but thought wanders off, and then you pull it back, the constant battle going on. Whereas in attention, if you go into it, it is very simple really. When somebody says, 'I love you', and he means it, you are attending, you don't say, do you love me because I look nice, or I have money, or sexual, or this or that - you follow what I am saying? So attention is something totally different from concentrationp
And this attention, the questioner asks, what is the relationship of this attention to thought? Right? None, obviously. I don't know if you follow this. Concentration has a relationship to thought because thought directs: I must learn, I must concentrate in order to control myself. Right? Thought then gives a direction from one point to another point. Whereas in attention thought has no place - you attend.
And is there a gap between attention and thought. Good lord. Sir, as we explained the other day, if you once understand, if one once has a grasp of the whole movement of thought you wouldn't put this question. You understand sir? I am not... I'll answer it, but first one has to, understand what thought is. You understand? Not somebody tell you what thought is. But to see what thought is, how it comes into being. And if you will go with me, I will do it again, we will go into it.
There can be no thought if there is total amnesia. Right? But fortunately, or unfortunately we are not in a state of amnesia. And one wants to find out what thought is, what place it has in life. You understand? So one begins to examine thinking. So what is thinking? Thinking takes place as a reaction to memory. Obviously. Memory responds to a challenge, to a question, to an action, or responds in relationship to something, or to an idea, to a person. Right? You see all this in life. So what is thinking, what is thought, how does thought exist in the human mind? So one asks then, what is memory? You understand? What is memory? Memory is you have trodden on some insect that has bitten you. That memory, that pain is registered and stored in the brain, that pain, which becomes a memory, it is not actual pain. That pain is over but the memory remains. So next time you are careful. So there is experience as p
ain, which has become knowledge, and that knowledge, experience is memory, that memory responds as thought. Right? That memory is thought. And knowledge, however wide, however deep, however extensive, must always be limited. Right? There is no complete knowledge. I don't know if you are following all this.
So thought is always partial, limited, divisive because in itself it isn't complete, in itself it can never be complete; it can think about completeness. You understand? It can think about totality, whole, but it's not, thought itself is not whole. So whatever it creates philosophically, religiously, it is still partial, limited, fragmentary, because knowledge is part of ignorance. You understand, sir? I don't know if you understand this. As knowledge can never be complete it must always go hand in hand with ignorance. Right? That's logical, rational. And if one understands the nature of thought, and understands what concentration is, then thought cannot attend because attention is giving all energy - you understand? - without any restraint. I wonder if you understand this. If you are listening now, I hope you are, if you are listening and attending, what takes place? There is no 'you' attending. Right? There is no centre that says, 'I must attend'. You are attending because it is your life, your interest. If you are not interested, lying down in the sun, saying, well I'll listen partly, that's a different matter. But if you are serious and giving attention you will soon find out all your problems, all that is gone - at least for the moment.
So to resolve problems is to attend. I wonder if you have got it. You understand this? It's not a trick! (Laughs)
Source - Jiddu Krishnamurti Fourth Public Question & Answer Meeting in Ojai
From krishnamurtidiscourses.blogspot.com
Friday, March 18, 2011
Virtuality Reality- A play station Game on Real Freedom- III
We saw in the previous two blogs the limitations of human beings in exercising free will. We saw the deception of choice as an illusion that man is free.Basically real freedom means no choice and the moment there is a choice there is human bondage. We also saw that choiceless awareness cannot be cultivated as the moment there is a conscious attempt it has decided to choose. The art lies in watching intensely or deep attention in which there is no judge ,no self ,no controller. Let's revisit briefly before proceeding further.
When there is no judge, no chooser there is no past or future . It's everlasting Present. Timelessness. Real freedom is in timelessness and not in past or future. Real freedom therefore lies is in choicelessness and not in choice. In other words there is no free will in choice . Its an an illusion that there is free will. Free will means ability to respond without any compulsions or out of habit. When there is a a judge,a chooser or a ME as an idea lurking behind all motivations and human action there is no real freedom. It is there at psychological level within human brain or mind. As somebody has said there is a ghost in the machine,a voice which continuously holds human beings in it's grip. . Everything is done to protect the idea of ME and to ensure it's continuity, psychologically. That invariably predicates past and future. It only evokes known habituated reactions such as fear, possessiveness,power intoxication, self pity,envy and so on.One big time job of the judge is to keep it's radar on to pick up insult actual or imagined and another job is to lap up praise again actual or imagined from his fellow judges. All these traits involve time because either it is about perpetuation or termination of likeable or dislikeable situations. It's the same for all humans across race and levels of income. The insecurity of a ruler is no different from insecurity of a poor man. Only when there is choiceless awareness there is no dea of ME and there is free will or real freedom.
Now let's try to look at it in a very different manner. Carefully avoiding words like ego ,advaita, non duality etc can one look at the whole thing in a very modernistic way. Let's create an interesting parable about this whole matter of real freedom. Since it's the age of virtual reality and game simulation we will create a play station game. The theme of the game is that a princess is inside a large fortress and is not really free.she is apparently free to move around the fortress but cannot step out.
The object of the game is to come out of the fortress and in order to do so she has to clear many hurdles. The reward is the entry into the heaven of freedom.
Level 1 is to overcome her insecurity to venture out. Level 2 is to overcome fear of unknown uncertainties outside the fortress. Level 3 is to overcome possessiveness about existing objects of desire inside the comfort of the fortress. We can create as many levels as we want as the game proceeds. The problem starts when the princess is maneuvering her hurdles there is a devil there all around preventing her from going ahead. A small temporary victory is quickly reversed as the devil is there at every gate . The devil is ubiquitous. It is like a shadow always following. Wherever there is a gate the devil is guarding it. It was a long frustrating experience with no tangible progress. Since it is virtual reality the player feels really like the frustrating princess. At times the princess is wondering what is the need to cross the hurdle. But again when challenged she regains energy to try again.
She tries many gates, many options but the devil is always there preventing her efforts. She tries the gate of religion, the gate of political idealism , the gate of pleasure,gate of pain and asceticism but fails to crossover the gate. Much similar to various gates in the movie Matrix with multiple agent Smith always there everywhere,indestructible. In fact she seriously doubts if there is anything beyond the gate. The promise of heaven lures to try hard and in the end she gives up. Just about when she gives up she realizes that devil is missing. There is no Agent Smith to fight.There is no more devil and no more gates to crossover. She was already free out of the fortress. The secret was when she gave up she realized the shadow of devil also vanished. It then dawned on her the devil was indeed her shadow self and therefore ubiquitous. When she gave up the devil is no more. The devil lies in the choosing the gate and when there is choiceless state there is no devil at all. Suddenly she steps into the heaven of freedom and realizes that fortress was indeed a prison..
Post Script: Awareness is Non-Effort:
Does not effort mean a struggle to change what is into what it is not, ot what should be or what should become? We are constantly escaping from what is to transform or modify it....Only when there is no awareness of what is there is an effort to transform. So effort is non awareness. Awareness reveals the significance of what is and the complete acceptance of the significance brings freedom. So awareness is non effort:awareness is the perception of what is without distortion. Distortion exist whenever there is effort. J Krishnamurti.
When there is no judge, no chooser there is no past or future . It's everlasting Present. Timelessness. Real freedom is in timelessness and not in past or future. Real freedom therefore lies is in choicelessness and not in choice. In other words there is no free will in choice . Its an an illusion that there is free will. Free will means ability to respond without any compulsions or out of habit. When there is a a judge,a chooser or a ME as an idea lurking behind all motivations and human action there is no real freedom. It is there at psychological level within human brain or mind. As somebody has said there is a ghost in the machine,a voice which continuously holds human beings in it's grip. . Everything is done to protect the idea of ME and to ensure it's continuity, psychologically. That invariably predicates past and future. It only evokes known habituated reactions such as fear, possessiveness,power intoxication, self pity,envy and so on.One big time job of the judge is to keep it's radar on to pick up insult actual or imagined and another job is to lap up praise again actual or imagined from his fellow judges. All these traits involve time because either it is about perpetuation or termination of likeable or dislikeable situations. It's the same for all humans across race and levels of income. The insecurity of a ruler is no different from insecurity of a poor man. Only when there is choiceless awareness there is no dea of ME and there is free will or real freedom.
Now let's try to look at it in a very different manner. Carefully avoiding words like ego ,advaita, non duality etc can one look at the whole thing in a very modernistic way. Let's create an interesting parable about this whole matter of real freedom. Since it's the age of virtual reality and game simulation we will create a play station game. The theme of the game is that a princess is inside a large fortress and is not really free.she is apparently free to move around the fortress but cannot step out.
The object of the game is to come out of the fortress and in order to do so she has to clear many hurdles. The reward is the entry into the heaven of freedom.
Level 1 is to overcome her insecurity to venture out. Level 2 is to overcome fear of unknown uncertainties outside the fortress. Level 3 is to overcome possessiveness about existing objects of desire inside the comfort of the fortress. We can create as many levels as we want as the game proceeds. The problem starts when the princess is maneuvering her hurdles there is a devil there all around preventing her from going ahead. A small temporary victory is quickly reversed as the devil is there at every gate . The devil is ubiquitous. It is like a shadow always following. Wherever there is a gate the devil is guarding it. It was a long frustrating experience with no tangible progress. Since it is virtual reality the player feels really like the frustrating princess. At times the princess is wondering what is the need to cross the hurdle. But again when challenged she regains energy to try again.
She tries many gates, many options but the devil is always there preventing her efforts. She tries the gate of religion, the gate of political idealism , the gate of pleasure,gate of pain and asceticism but fails to crossover the gate. Much similar to various gates in the movie Matrix with multiple agent Smith always there everywhere,indestructible. In fact she seriously doubts if there is anything beyond the gate. The promise of heaven lures to try hard and in the end she gives up. Just about when she gives up she realizes that devil is missing. There is no Agent Smith to fight.There is no more devil and no more gates to crossover. She was already free out of the fortress. The secret was when she gave up she realized the shadow of devil also vanished. It then dawned on her the devil was indeed her shadow self and therefore ubiquitous. When she gave up the devil is no more. The devil lies in the choosing the gate and when there is choiceless state there is no devil at all. Suddenly she steps into the heaven of freedom and realizes that fortress was indeed a prison..
Post Script: Awareness is Non-Effort:
Does not effort mean a struggle to change what is into what it is not, ot what should be or what should become? We are constantly escaping from what is to transform or modify it....Only when there is no awareness of what is there is an effort to transform. So effort is non awareness. Awareness reveals the significance of what is and the complete acceptance of the significance brings freedom. So awareness is non effort:awareness is the perception of what is without distortion. Distortion exist whenever there is effort. J Krishnamurti.
Is There A Real Freedom In Choice- II
We saw in the previous article that real freedom lies in choicelessness. Choice means an existence of me which acts as judge preventing man from seeing reality as it is. Where there is Me there is time and there lies human bondage. To end this bondage Me has to end. So how does ME end? Me is content of consciousness and it can end only by emptying it. Any attempt to empty it is still within the field of thought and continues to reel in the sphere of me. Any effort is merely strengthening me. Any methodology throws you back into the well of Me. Any process is like buying time and me continues it's whirlwind inside the human brain.
The solution lies in Seeing that ME is not real as a fact, not as a concept. The sheer act seeing the fallacy of ME is emptying it's content. It is instant and immediate . It's like a computer file which is emptied by delete command. Unlike computer you cannot command me but you can perceive it's falsehood. In seeing is the ending.
It can never end if seeing is through images. Images about myself is ME, my idea of other peoples image about me is also a part of me. Till that image is seeing there is no seeing. Seeing the mirage of Me can end Me . Then there is harmony, there is peace and there is living. It is actuality.
How does one see is an irrelevant question. The only way to see inwardly is to be choicelessly aware. Which means to be attentive,to watch ones motives or actions without any judgmental or analytical exercise. In that watching there is no choice. Choice implies duality, conformity, images and lack of freedom. In real freedom there is no choice. It's important to understand that choice is exercised by Me which is content of consciousness. Choice when excercised externally like choosing blue colour or square design is okay. But when choice is exercised inwardly it's in the loop of me. When there is choiceless awareness one discovers there is unity.it is not a concept or theory. It is reality.
Me is a disorder. The entire story of mankind is in it's content of consciousness. It is not an individual's consciousness. It is common. It is all about fulfillement,loneliness,hatred and comparison,. Pride and vanity. Frustrations and fears. Whether rich or poor, young or old, black, brown or white, educated or uneducated the content of consciousness is the same. It all gets condensed into an image. An image of a successful man or image of low self esteem, an image of moral superiority or self flagelling misery.Invariably, an image which is comparing and becoming into something.
That's not freedom. There is no freedom from self or the image of self at all. When there is a complete attention one realizes there is no centre. One sees that Me is an illusion, an idea. A fiction that acts as real though there is no solidity in its existence it appears to be a solid self.In that realization is total freedom. In that freedom there is total security,total harmony and total stability. Where there is self with all it's images there is clinging to falsehood. In the moment of complete attention there is no self, no centre. It's just existence. From such a state whatever action emerges is the right action. It is state of total awareness void of any objectified self.
In the words of J.Krishnamurti :Awareness is Non-Effort:Does not effort mean a struggle to change what is into what it is not, ot what should be or what should become? We are constantly escaping from what is to transform or modify it....Only when there is no awareness of what is there is an effort to transform. So effort is non awareness. Awareness reveals the significance of what is and the complete acceptance of the significance brings freedom. So awareness is non effort:awareness is the perception of what is without distortion. Distortion exist whenever there is effort. J Krishnamurti.
(based on teachings of J krishnamurti)
Is There A Real Freedom In Choice
When there is no judge, no chooser there is no past or future . It's everlasting Present. Timelessness. Real freedom is in timelessness and not in past or future. Real freedom therefore lies is in choicelessness and not in choice. Read on.......
All of us now spoilt by the choice offered under free markets cannot imagine our life without freedom of choice. After all what is life without freedom and if there is no choice there is no life indeed. Our favorite store shelves stacked with different things in different colors and sizes is the hallmark of modern man's existence. But is that truly freedom? On the contrary man becomes a confused slave of choice. Ever visited an exotic restaurant with more esoteric Menu Card? A definite recipe to disastrous confusion. However such wide choice offered at material plane of existence is not really a serious bone of contention. It maybe justified or necessary or may even add some pep and jest in life.But living in the belief that choosing is real freedom is riddled with a serious logical flaw. It may not be necessarily a good idea.
When it comes to serious questions about life, freedom of choice demands a very close introspection. What are serious questions of life? We are beset with questions such as what is life all about? What are we doing to our life? What is true freedom? Freedom of choice or freedom from choice.
Freedom is negation of any conditioning of human mind by religious or political or economic or sociological divisions.What is conditioning? Is it belief system? It is all categories,thoughts,concepts,construct,myths,image that collectively reside inside a human being. It is something unreal, some kind of fantasy which passes as real inside the human mind or brain.Our main problems of life are that we are attached to conditions of past and continue living in the fantasy of future. Whether it's hope for a better future or fear of dark future specter of time never leaves it's shadow from our existence.
It was mystic philosopher J krishnamurti who prodded us to question where lies real freedom from past and future. Does it lie in choice? Or does it come about when there is choicelessness.
It's a fact that there is no choice if there is no chooser by definition. So when a man lives in choice he is constantly judging or choosing. He evades reality and refuses to see fact as fact or rejects what is. He for instance does not accept the fact that he is greedy. Instead he chooses to say that he will not be greedy in future or he should not be greedy. When he accepts just the fact that he is greedy and stops there then there is no further reaction. There is no judge or censor who acts as a controller. When there is choicelessness suddenly a man is freed from the compulsion of acting in a conditioned manner.Total inner freedom is an essential condition to see what is. Awareness cannot come without total inner freedom.
Be it greed or envy, jealousy or hurts , pleasure seeking or abstinence , regret or sorrow there is a likeable or unlikeable past, there is desire for better future and there is a constant habitual conditioned reaction to all life situation. There is a chooser who is so deeply conditioned that the art of responding freely is forgotten.He is constantly seeking permanence or continuously chiding himself for his inadequacies. Such a behavior is a enslaved behaviour living in past or projecting a better future. Obviously such life is not a free life. It is a bonded life to chains of past . And unfortunately the prisoner is not even aware that he is imprisoned and that there is a way out to freedom. As long as he is judgmental he is exercising choice and can never be outside the clutches of habitual enslaved behavior.
When we judge there is a me who judges,me a chooser. Me is the dividing factor separating him from others. Me is my country, my likes, my religion, my ideology, my sensuality, and so on. It is the complete psychological ideation about me. My ambition, my experiences, my superiorities, my achievements,my greed, my envies, my regrets all go onto become me. Me creates a conflict with external world as in me vs you as well as internal within oneself. Internal conflict create a pressure to become a better and better me. Me is self image it is total content of consciousness lying as memory. Not memory such as how to drive a car but the memory that I am a good driver. That me wants to add and subtract to the content of consciousness creating internal conflict. Me chooses to pass a judgement. Look at it differently. As long as there is a choice there is past and future but the present is really missing. span
When there is no judge, no chooser there is no past or future . It's everlasting Present. Timelessness. Real freedom is in timelessness and not in past or future. Real freedom therefore lies is in choicelessness and not in choice. In other words there is no free will in choice . Its an an illusion that there is free will. Free will means ability to respond without any compulsions or out of habit. When there is a a judge,a chooser or a ME as an idea lurking behind all motivations and human action there is no real freedom. It is there at psychological level within human brain or mind. As somebody has said there is a ghost in the machine,a voice which continuously holds human beings in it's grip. . Everything is done to protect the idea of ME and to ensure it's continuity, psychologically. That invariably predicates past and future. It only evokes known habituated reactions such as fear, possessiveness,power intoxication, self pity,envy and so on. One big time job of the judge is to keep it's radar on to pick up insult actual or imagined and another job is to lap up praise again actual or imagined from his fellow judges.All these traits involve time because either it is about perpetuation or termination of likeable or dislikeable situations. It's the same for all humans across race and levels of income. The insecurity of a ruler is no different from insecurity of a poor man. Only when there is choiceless awareness there is no dea of ME and there is free will or real freedom.
( Fully Inspired and Based on Teachings of J krishnamurti)
- Is there a freedom in choice?
All of us now spoilt by the choice offered under free markets cannot imagine our life without freedom of choice. After all what is life without freedom and if there is no choice there is no life indeed. Our favorite store shelves stacked with different things in different colors and sizes is the hallmark of modern man's existence. But is that truly freedom? On the contrary man becomes a confused slave of choice. Ever visited an exotic restaurant with more esoteric Menu Card? A definite recipe to disastrous confusion. However such wide choice offered at material plane of existence is not really a serious bone of contention. It maybe justified or necessary or may even add some pep and jest in life.But living in the belief that choosing is real freedom is riddled with a serious logical flaw. It may not be necessarily a good idea.
When it comes to serious questions about life, freedom of choice demands a very close introspection. What are serious questions of life? We are beset with questions such as what is life all about? What are we doing to our life? What is true freedom? Freedom of choice or freedom from choice.
Freedom is negation of any conditioning of human mind by religious or political or economic or sociological divisions.What is conditioning? Is it belief system? It is all categories,thoughts,concepts,construct,myths,image that collectively reside inside a human being. It is something unreal, some kind of fantasy which passes as real inside the human mind or brain.Our main problems of life are that we are attached to conditions of past and continue living in the fantasy of future. Whether it's hope for a better future or fear of dark future specter of time never leaves it's shadow from our existence.
It was mystic philosopher J krishnamurti who prodded us to question where lies real freedom from past and future. Does it lie in choice? Or does it come about when there is choicelessness.
It's a fact that there is no choice if there is no chooser by definition. So when a man lives in choice he is constantly judging or choosing. He evades reality and refuses to see fact as fact or rejects what is. He for instance does not accept the fact that he is greedy. Instead he chooses to say that he will not be greedy in future or he should not be greedy. When he accepts just the fact that he is greedy and stops there then there is no further reaction. There is no judge or censor who acts as a controller. When there is choicelessness suddenly a man is freed from the compulsion of acting in a conditioned manner.Total inner freedom is an essential condition to see what is. Awareness cannot come without total inner freedom.
Be it greed or envy, jealousy or hurts , pleasure seeking or abstinence , regret or sorrow there is a likeable or unlikeable past, there is desire for better future and there is a constant habitual conditioned reaction to all life situation. There is a chooser who is so deeply conditioned that the art of responding freely is forgotten.He is constantly seeking permanence or continuously chiding himself for his inadequacies. Such a behavior is a enslaved behaviour living in past or projecting a better future. Obviously such life is not a free life. It is a bonded life to chains of past . And unfortunately the prisoner is not even aware that he is imprisoned and that there is a way out to freedom. As long as he is judgmental he is exercising choice and can never be outside the clutches of habitual enslaved behavior.
When we judge there is a me who judges,me a chooser. Me is the dividing factor separating him from others. Me is my country, my likes, my religion, my ideology, my sensuality, and so on. It is the complete psychological ideation about me. My ambition, my experiences, my superiorities, my achievements,my greed, my envies, my regrets all go onto become me. Me creates a conflict with external world as in me vs you as well as internal within oneself. Internal conflict create a pressure to become a better and better me. Me is self image it is total content of consciousness lying as memory. Not memory such as how to drive a car but the memory that I am a good driver. That me wants to add and subtract to the content of consciousness creating internal conflict. Me chooses to pass a judgement. Look at it differently. As long as there is a choice there is past and future but the present is really missing. span
When there is no judge, no chooser there is no past or future . It's everlasting Present. Timelessness. Real freedom is in timelessness and not in past or future. Real freedom therefore lies is in choicelessness and not in choice. In other words there is no free will in choice . Its an an illusion that there is free will. Free will means ability to respond without any compulsions or out of habit. When there is a a judge,a chooser or a ME as an idea lurking behind all motivations and human action there is no real freedom. It is there at psychological level within human brain or mind. As somebody has said there is a ghost in the machine,a voice which continuously holds human beings in it's grip. . Everything is done to protect the idea of ME and to ensure it's continuity, psychologically. That invariably predicates past and future. It only evokes known habituated reactions such as fear, possessiveness,power intoxication, self pity,envy and so on. One big time job of the judge is to keep it's radar on to pick up insult actual or imagined and another job is to lap up praise again actual or imagined from his fellow judges.All these traits involve time because either it is about perpetuation or termination of likeable or dislikeable situations. It's the same for all humans across race and levels of income. The insecurity of a ruler is no different from insecurity of a poor man. Only when there is choiceless awareness there is no dea of ME and there is free will or real freedom.
( Fully Inspired and Based on Teachings of J krishnamurti)
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Human Brain, Insight And Computer by j. Krishnamurti
J.Krishnamurti : Death is impermanence and possessiveness is hoping for permanence.Happiness is a side-effect, not an end in itself.
Belief atrophies the brain. If you keep on repeating, repeating, as they do, your brain atrophies.
Dialogues with J.Krishnamurti on Human Brain and Computer & Insight
K:
No, the brain is the entire centre of desire, feeling, anxiety, pain, loneliness. The consciousness is all that, the beliefs, fears, sorrow, loneliness, anxiety, the whole….
DB : …. The psychological being.
K : Yes, the psychological structure, confusion. That is the brain. And love is not part of the brain because it is something outside that.
I know. I use that word but, you see, meditation is a very complex business. In meditation there is no meditator at all.
K : That’s all. When you are really looking at something there is the absence of the self.
From what I have discussed with people, Nirvana apparently means a state in which the self is not. The self in the sense of all the turmoil. Come to that point, don’t discuss what Nirvana is you will find out.
: No, I am putting it differently. When you are not hearing with the sensory ear, but hearing inwardly, completely, in that state we are absolutely silent. When absolutely silent, then insight may take place. Perception in which there is no division as the ‘me’, the perceiver and the perceived-right? So the whole mechanical process of thinking, with its conflict, comes to an end.
I wouldn’t ask a human being whether he has insight. That, I think, would be a wrong question. But I would ask: does the mechanical process of thinking ever stop? Or is the brain perpetually occupies?
I follow that, sir. What you are saying is: insight is perception or listening without any examination, any analytical process at all.
DB : If you start with logic, you are starting with your past assumptions that are wrong. You see the difficulty. When you start from insight, you start from something new, a new perception. But if you start from logic, you must start from what you already know, which is always wrong, fundamentally.
So we started out by saying that thought is mechanical. The computer is mechanical. What thought can do the computer can do, up to a certain point. But thought being mechanical, can never capture that which is non-mechanical. And insight is non-mechanical, totally non-mechanical. Now listen to that, don’t argue. You have argued enough now to say thought is mechanical, computers are mechanical; whatever thought can do, up to a certain point the computer can do, it can learn, relearn, adjust, it can do all the kinds of thing that thought can do, based on knowledge and so on. We both agreed to that. David tells me it is perfectly right up to that point. But that doesn’t bring about insight, he tells me. So I say, all right. I don’t say, what am I to do? The moment I say, what am I to do, you are back in the cycle. Right? He says, see that very clearly and don’t move away from that. We have argued about this mechanical process sufficiently. We can go into much more detail and so on but we have got the principle of it. Right? That’s all. Don’t move from there. Don’t say, what is insight? If you don’t move, it’s there. I don’t know if I’ve conveyed this.
K : I would like to discuss that a little. ‘Attending’ means giving all your energy, sensitivity, the whole nervous organism, so that not only your hearing, you eyes, but everything is tremendously alive. In that state of attention there is no centre as the ‘me’ attending. So there is no fear in that. I don’t know if I am making myself clear.
: No, the point is to understand living, the significance of living, not this perpetual battle, struggle, conflict, I must have more, be better, this constant measurement of myself with somebody else – he is famous so I must become famous, he is on television, I am not! This terrible sense of poverty; and in the attempt to be rich there is the burden of fear. I may never get rich because there is somebody much richer.
Yes, You see that’s why one has to inquire, is there a becoming and therefore the ending of becoming is fear.
K : And is there psychological becoming at all? There is a becoming in the world in the sense that one is apprenticed to a master carpenter and you gradually work with him until you become as he is. But that same attitude spills over, or is extended into, the other, the psychological, inner field – I must become something. If I don’t I am lost, I am a failure, I am depressed, look, you have become something, I am nobody.
K : Death is impermanence and possessiveness is hoping for permanence.
So there are two separate entities. The thinker and the object of which you think. Now, what is the thinker?
: To realize that the observer, the thinker, the experience and the observed, the experience are one, are not separate, sir, that means a tremendous, inward, psychological revolution. It means there is no division, there is no conflict. And when you then give attention to the fact, the fact is burnt away. But thought will be kept to plant a tree, to bring that flower into being.
K : No, the ultimate goal, if you can put it that way, is to find that which is completely sacred, totally uncontaminated by thought.
: Of course not, that’s why I said one has to be free of all the illusions that thought has created to see something really sacred which comes about through right meditation.
K : You see, this question is very complex. Putting the house in order means no fear, the understanding of pleasure, the ending of sorrow. From that arise compassion, intelligence, and the process of that we’ll call it process for the moment – is part of meditation and then to find out whether thought can ever stop, which means time has to have a stop. And then out of that comes the great silence, and it is in that silence that one can find that which is sacred.
K : No, when one realize that the observer is the observed, the controller is the controlled, the experiencer is the experience, when one realize it not intellectually, verbally, but actually, profoundly, then that very perception stops it. It’s like seeing danger. If you see danger you move away from it. For example, a human being who is perpetually in conflict may ‘meditate’, he may do all kinds of things but the conflict still goes on; but when he sees the psychological danger, the poison of conflict, then he’ll stop it, there’s an end of it.
You see, then we have to find out what action is. Is there an action that doesn’t create conflict, in which there is no regret, which under all circumstances, whether we live in a poor or an affluent society, is and must always be correct? To find that out one has to go into the question of what our action is now. It is either idealistic action concerned with the future or it is action based on past memories, which is knowledge. Now, is there an action independent of the future, of time? That’s the whole point, isn’t it?
Belief atrophies the brain. If you keep on repeating, repeating, as they do, your brain atrophies.
k :j.krishnamuti. Mystic,philosopher. DB: Dr. David Bohm, swedish physicist.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
Krishnamurti and Quantum Mechanics
It was krishnamurti who in his teachings talked about observer is observed. This does not mean as an uninitiated may quickly jump to conclude the same as identifying oneself with a physical object. It is about pure observation or choiceness awareness in which self as judge is absent and there is silent witnessing to one's thoughts. We shall see in a little while what exactly is observer is observed and also validate it further in the light of modern-day physics now referred to as Quantum Mechanics. First some concepts in quantum mechanics . As against classical physics known as Newtonian physics today the worldview is different. It is no more an absolute objective world with objects having absolute existence irrespective of observers.Reality is what we make it in our experience through our participation. This is because at the microscopic level subatomic entities are probabilistic existence. They can be either particle or wave depending on observer. The interference of observer by measuring or participative observation a subatomic entity becomes a reality. Till then it is in a state of possibility. According to Heisenberg it is between possibility and reality.
What it means that the physical substantive world as we see it and feel it is possible because we experience it . Reality is our experience. It does not exist outside our experience. Towards this viewpoint physicists conducted various experiments with two main ones being the Double slit experiment and the Schrodinger's cat. These experiments prove that subatomic entity is both a particle as well as wave. It is a potential state . A photon which is the minutest subatomic entity becomes a particle if we try to measure it . It is also a wave if left uninterfered . Thus if there is an observation the observed entity undergoes a change. Reversely if unobserved the behaviour of photon is entirely different. So the question arises whether photon exists independent of us. There goes a very famous zen kaon " there is a thud sound in a forest where there is nobody. Did the sound exists independent of any listener?In fact even we exists in relation to creation around us. We take a break from quantum mechanics here to go back to krishnamurti'steachings. Subsequently we shall connect the dots..
According to krishnamurti observer is observed. In his words" the very thing you observe-the very thing that is being observed undergoes a radical transformation if there is no observer. We don't change fundamentally as human beings because we have divided the observer from the observed. So there is no fundamental change. But there is fundamental change radically and at great depth when the observer is observed. When there is only pure observation. Then that which is being observed undergoes a radical change because there is no naming it,no conclusion about it ,no abstraction, no escape."It is pertinent here to know that observer is an agglomeration of self image put together by thought. It consists of our likes,,dislikes,hatred,jealousies,envy,violence pride etc. When this observer separates itself from it's images it assumes a solid identity. In the process it gives energy to what is being observed such as fear, greed, envy regrets,sorrow etc. but in reality the observer itself is fear etc. So is it possible for the observer to see that it is nothing but the observed and not a separate phenomena? Because if he can see the illusion of fictitious observer then his observation undergo a change. Then there is just choiceless observervation sans observer. It is here a miracle happens. When there is pure observation the things being observed undergo a change. Man's fear or anxiety or jealousy undergo a change. There is no observer to revitalise or energize it. This leads to radical transformation and man experiences real freedom. Since there is no observer there is no conflict between the observer and what he ideally wants to be. There is state of pure existence. Choiceness awareness with no observer to wallow in sorrow or suffering..
Back to quantum mechanics. It says we actualize our reality. An observer creates an observed existence. Without observer the observed entity is a mere potential. It is like a particle as well as a wave. Similarly when we observe as an observer we enhance our fears and negativities. When we observe without the interference of self obsessed observer then the observed traits undergo a change. They dissipate giving rise to choiceless awareness.. Remember if we observe a photon is a particle and if do not it is wavelike. Similarly when observer realizes that he is not separate from the observed there is state of no observer. It is then uninterfered observation coined as choiceless awareness by krishnamurti.. The moment observer steps in the photon becomes particle or in case of man his fears become real. He loses his freedom and becomes a slave to his thoughts. Then anything is possible. Violence or envy can overtake him or he can be in a perennial state of agony. The moment the observer vanishes the brain undergoes a radical change. Then his actions are based on responses to situations and are no more reactions to his past. Like a photon ours fears are potentially ready to vanish if we do not observe as an observer. It is of course easier said than done. But not impossible.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Eat Pray Love
We call it “dolce far niente”, the sweetness of doing nothing.”
On Soul Mates
"People think a soul mate is your perfect fit, and that's what everyone wants. But a true soul mate is a mirror, the person who shows you everything that is holding you back, the person who brings you to your own attention so you can change your life.
A true soul mate is probably the most important person you'll ever meet, because they tear down your walls and smack you awake. But to live with a soul mate forever? Nah. Too painful. Soul mates, they come into your life just to reveal another layer of yourself to you, and then leave.
A soul mates purpose is to shake you up, tear apart your ego a little bit, show you your obstacles and addictions, break your heart open so new light can get in, make you so desperate and out of control that you have to transform your life, then introduce you to your spiritual master..."
"I have a history of making decisions very quickly about men. I have always fallen in love fast and without measuring risks. I have a tendency not only to see the best in everyone, but to assume that everyone is emotionally capable of reaching his highest potential. I have fallen in love more times than I care to count with the highest potential of a man, rather than with the man himself, and I have hung on to the relationship for a long time (sometimes far too long) waiting for the man to ascend to his own greatness. Many times in romance I have been a victim of my own optimism."
On Happiness
"Happiness is the consequence of personal effort. You fight for it, strive for it, insist upon it, and sometimes even travel around the world looking for it. You have to participate relentlessly in the manifestations of your own blessings. And once you have achieved a state of happiness, you must never become lax about maintaining it. You must make a mighty effort to keep swimming upward into that happiness forever, to stay afloat on top of it."
We search for happiness everywhere, but we are like Tolstoy's fabled beggar who spent his life sitting on a pot of gold, under him the whole time. Your treasure--your perfection--is within you already. But to claim it, you must leave the buy commotion of the mind and abandon the desires of the ego and enter into the silence of the heart."
—
On Lonliness
"When I get lonely these days, I think: So BE lonely, Liz. Learn your way around loneliness. Make a map of it. Sit with it, for once in your life. Welcome to the human experience. But never again use another person's body or emotions as a scratching post for your own unfulfilled yearnings."
Never forget that once upon a time, in an unguarded moment, you recognized yourself as a friend."
We’re miserable because we think that we are mere individuals, alone with our fears and flaws and resentment and mortality.”
On Life
Tis' better to live your own life imperfectly than to imitate someone else's perfectly
"Your emotions are the slaves to your thoughts, and you are the slave to your emotions."I am a better person when I have less on my plate."
I crossed the street to walk in the sunshine
As smoking is to the lungs, so is resentment to the soul; even one puff is bad for you."
When you're lost in those woods, it sometimes takes you a while to realize that you are lost. For the longest time, you can convince yourself that you've just wandered off the path, that you'll find your way back to the trailhead any moment now. Then night falls again and again, and you still have no idea where you are, and its time to admit that you have bewildered yourself so far off the path that you dont even know from which direction the sun rises anymore."
“Like most humanoids, I am burdened with what the Buddhists call the ‘monkey mind’– the thoughts that swing from limb to limb, stopping only to scratch themselves, spit, and howl. From the distant past to the unknowable future, my mind swings wildly through time, touching on dozens of ideas a minute, unharnessed and undisciplined.”
“A friend took me to the most amazing place the other day. It’s called the Augusteum. Octavian Augustus built it to house his remains. When the barbarians came they trashed it a long with everything else. The great Augustus, Rome’s first true great emperor. How could he have imagined that Rome, the whole world as far as he was concerned, would be in ruins. It’s one of the quietest, loneliest places in Rome. The city has grown up around it over the centuries. It feels like a precious wound, a heartbreak you won’t let go of because it hurts too good. We all want things to stay the same. Settle for living in misery because we’re afraid of change, of things crumbling to ruins. Then I looked at around to this place, at the chaos it has endured – the way it has been adapted, burned, pillaged and found a way to build itself back up again. And I was reassured, maybe my life hasn’t been so chaotic, it’s just the world that is, and the real trap is getting attached to any of it. Ruin is a gift. Ruin is the road to transformation.”
On Fate
There is so much about my fate that I cannot control, but other things do fall under the jurisdiction. I can decide how I spend my time, whom I interact with, whom I share my body and life and money and energy with. I can select what I can read and eat and study. I can choose how I'm going to regard unfortunate circumstances in my life-whether I will see them as curses or opportunities. I can choose my words and the tone of voice in which I speak to others. And most of all, I can choose my thoughts.
You need to learn how to select your thoughts just the same way you select your clothes every day. This is a power you can cultivate. If you want to control things in your life so bad, work on the mind. That's the only thing you should be trying to control."
The philosopher Sufi said that God drew a circle around the exact spot you are standing on. I was never not going to be here. This was never not going to happen.”
you are brave enough to leave behind everything familiar and comforting (which can be anything from your house to your bitter old resentments) and set out on a truth-seeking journey (either externally or internally), and if you are truly willing to regard everything that happens to you on that journey as a clue, and if you accept everyone you meet along the way as a teacher, and if you are prepared – most of all – to face (and forgive) some very difficult realities about yourself….then truth will not be withheld from you.” Or so I’ve come to believe.
On Love
"In desperate love, we always invent the characters of our partners, demanding they be what we need of them, and then feeling devastated when they refuse to perform the role we created in the first place."
I met an old lady once, almost a hundred years old, and she told me, 'There are only two questions that human beings have ever fought over, all through history. How much do you love me? And Who's in charge
On Guilt
Guilt’s just your ego’s way of tricking you into thinking that you’re making moral progress.’”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)