Naude: There are the problems outside which engender the problems inside. Not being able to deal with either, or both, we create the hope of
some other, some third state, which we call God.
Krishnamurti: Yes, an outside agency.
Naude: An outside agency which will be the consolation, the final solution. But it is also a fact that there are things which are really
outer problems: the roof leaks, the sky is full of pollution,
the rivers are drying up, there are such problems. And there are wars - they are visible outer problems. There are also problems which we think to be
inner problems, our secret and closed longings, fears and worries.
Krishnamurti: Yes.
Naude: There is the world, and there is man's reaction to it, man's living in it. And so there are these two entities - at least in a
practical sort of way we can say there are. And so probably the
trying to solve practical problems overflows into the inner state of man and engenders problems there.
Krishnamurti: That means we are still keeping the outer and the inner as two separate movements.
Naude: Yes, we are. We do.
Krishnamurti: And I feel that is a totally wrong approach. The roof does leak and the world is overpopulated, there is pollution, there are
wars, there is every kind of mischief going on. And not
being able to solve that we turn inward; not being able to solve the inward issues we turn to something outer, still further away from all this.
Whereas if we could treat the whole of this existence as
one unitary movement, then perhaps we would be able to solve all these problems intelligently and reasonably and in order.
Naude: Yes. It seems that is what you speak about. Would you mind telling us how these three problems are really one thing?
Krishnamurti: I am coming to that, I am coming to it. The world outside of me is created by me - not the trees, not the clouds, the bees and
the beauty of the landscape - but human existence in
relationship, which is called society, that is created by you and by me. So the world is me and I am the world. I think that is the first thing that
must be established: not as an intellectual or an abstract
fact, but in actual feeling, in actual realization. This is a fact, not a supposition, not an intellectual concept, but it is a fact that the world is
me and I am the world. The world being the society in
which I live, with its culture, morality, inequality, all the chaos that is going on in society, that is myself in action. And the culture is what I
have created and what I am caught in. I think that is an
irrevocable and an absolute fact.
Naude: Yes. How is it that people don't see this enough? We have politicians, we have ecologists, we have economists, we have soldiers all
trying to solve the outside problems simply as outer problems.
Krishnamurti: Probably because of a lack of the right kind of education: specialization, the desire to conquer and go to the moon and play
golf there, and so on and so on! We always want to alter
the outer hoping thereby to change the inner. "Create the right environment" - the communists have said it a hundred times – "then the human mind
will change according to that."
Naude: That is what they say. In fact, every great university, with all its departments, with all its specialists, one could almost say that
these great universities are founded and built on the belief
that the world can be changed by a certain amount of specialized knowledge in different departments.
Krishnamurti: Yes. I think we miss this basic thing, which is: the world is me and I am the world. I think that feeling, not as an idea, that
feeling brings a totally different way of looking at this
whole problem.
Naude: It is an enormous revolution. To see the problem as one problem, the problem of man and not the problem of his environment, that is an
enormous step, which people will not take.
Krishnamurti: People won't take any step. They are used to this outward organization and disregard totally what is happening inwardly. So
when one realizes that the world is me and I am the
world, then my action is not separative, is not the individual opposed to the community; nor the importance of the individual and his salvation. When
one realizes that the world is me and I am
the world, then whatever action takes place, whatever change takes place, that will change the whole of the consciousness of man.
Conversations with a Sage: Jiddu Krishnamurti in “Solving worldly problems” , page
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
Topic started on 8-5-2012 @ 12:45 PM by LifeIsEnergy
Conversations with a Sage: Jiddu Krishnamurti in “Solving worldly problems”
This is part two of the series. In part one, www.abovetopsecret.com... , we looked at a conversation with Nisargadatta Maharaj and we saw his style of approaching worldly troubles. Today we look into Jiddu Krishnamurti's approach of solving these issues. It is sure to shock some, and open the eyes of many.
Krishnamurti was a different kind of sage. He was groomed since childhood by the Theosophical Society to become a “World Teacher”. He was a quite child who listened far more then he talked. But soon that changed when he rejected the Theosophical Society's notion of him being a “World Teacher” and went his separate way. He saw the other so-called wise men, who had religions established in their names, be worshiped as God's while their words were completely misunderstood and distorted. Thus, he absolutely refuted any attempt by others to give him the label of a “spiritual teacher” or “guru”, and made sure everyone understood he did not want followers and he was not to be idolized. In fact, the label of “sage” is used very lightly here. He was not a poetic philosopher as say Lao Tzu was, nor did he formulate methods out of his insights for us to follow, as say the Buddha did.
Krishnamurti steered clear from all traditional and metaphysical terminology and demanded that the conversation remain only within the boundaries of things that are factually self-evident. Many considered him the greatest thinker of the 20th century, his approach was very scientific and he would never wander off into Deepak Chopra type “fuzzy” talk. He, himself, on many occasions stated his intent was not to bring warm and fuzzy feelings to people, but vigorous clarity to [I]what is. He tries his best to detail and define every word and concept being used so the listener does not get lost or confused, or wander off into abstractions, and because of this, a conversation may not veer very far away from one subject and yet it can last for hours.
The following conversation is between a man named Alain Naude and Krishnamurti. They begin by talking about the worlds problems and then inquire into whether there is any solution to these seemingly difficult issues humanity is facing. They touch on many topics along the way, including: free-will, will power, God, consciousness, amongst others.
It is a very long conversation, but it touches on many of the topics being discussed around here lately, so get some tea, turn off your phone, and delve deep into the mind of this genius. In my opinion, this is in the top ten of the best discussions JK ever publicly had, and I've read or watched nearly all of the ones that are published. The talk is called, “The circus of man's struggles”.
Enjoy!
This is part two of the series. In part one, www.abovetopsecret.com... , we looked at a conversation with Nisargadatta Maharaj and we saw his style of approaching worldly troubles. Today we look into Jiddu Krishnamurti's approach of solving these issues. It is sure to shock some, and open the eyes of many.
Krishnamurti was a different kind of sage. He was groomed since childhood by the Theosophical Society to become a “World Teacher”. He was a quite child who listened far more then he talked. But soon that changed when he rejected the Theosophical Society's notion of him being a “World Teacher” and went his separate way. He saw the other so-called wise men, who had religions established in their names, be worshiped as God's while their words were completely misunderstood and distorted. Thus, he absolutely refuted any attempt by others to give him the label of a “spiritual teacher” or “guru”, and made sure everyone understood he did not want followers and he was not to be idolized. In fact, the label of “sage” is used very lightly here. He was not a poetic philosopher as say Lao Tzu was, nor did he formulate methods out of his insights for us to follow, as say the Buddha did.
Krishnamurti steered clear from all traditional and metaphysical terminology and demanded that the conversation remain only within the boundaries of things that are factually self-evident. Many considered him the greatest thinker of the 20th century, his approach was very scientific and he would never wander off into Deepak Chopra type “fuzzy” talk. He, himself, on many occasions stated his intent was not to bring warm and fuzzy feelings to people, but vigorous clarity to [I]what is. He tries his best to detail and define every word and concept being used so the listener does not get lost or confused, or wander off into abstractions, and because of this, a conversation may not veer very far away from one subject and yet it can last for hours.
The following conversation is between a man named Alain Naude and Krishnamurti. They begin by talking about the worlds problems and then inquire into whether there is any solution to these seemingly difficult issues humanity is facing. They touch on many topics along the way, including: free-will, will power, God, consciousness, amongst others.
It is a very long conversation, but it touches on many of the topics being discussed around here lately, so get some tea, turn off your phone, and delve deep into the mind of this genius. In my opinion, this is in the top ten of the best discussions JK ever publicly had, and I've read or watched nearly all of the ones that are published. The talk is called, “The circus of man's struggles”.
Enjoy!
reply posted on 9-5-2012 @ 02:58 PM by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by kwakakev
The conflict of consciousness is what creates the conflicts of the world, that is what he is saying. You are the world because you, and me, create the world. So if you solve the conflicts within consciousness, through association, you automatically solve the conflicts of the world. It is something each of us must do. He is not talking about some cosmic consciousness that we must tap into.
He is saying, the contents of consciousness; the images, emotions, memories, ideas... is consciousness itself, and all of this content is in conflict with each other; the image of "me" is in conflict with the memory of who I used to be or the idea of who I should be. In other words, I am angry (this is the image of "me") and I am not really an angry person (this is the memory of who I used to be), or I am angry (this is the image of "me") and I shouldn't be angry (this is the idea of who I should be), and it is this conflict that causes consciousness to be caught in a vicious circle, or as they called it, a circus.
Once this is realized, and not just intellectually but deeply as an irrevocable feeling, there is a massive revolution of the psyche; of this consciousness, where it is now able to be quiet (at peace, and not in conflict) when it is not needed. Consciousness is needed for survival, it must be used to build homes and gather food, yet not being able to set aside the mind is what allows for chaos/conflict to reign supreme because the mind is chaos/conflict.
Peace.
The conflict of consciousness is what creates the conflicts of the world, that is what he is saying. You are the world because you, and me, create the world. So if you solve the conflicts within consciousness, through association, you automatically solve the conflicts of the world. It is something each of us must do. He is not talking about some cosmic consciousness that we must tap into.
He is saying, the contents of consciousness; the images, emotions, memories, ideas... is consciousness itself, and all of this content is in conflict with each other; the image of "me" is in conflict with the memory of who I used to be or the idea of who I should be. In other words, I am angry (this is the image of "me") and I am not really an angry person (this is the memory of who I used to be), or I am angry (this is the image of "me") and I shouldn't be angry (this is the idea of who I should be), and it is this conflict that causes consciousness to be caught in a vicious circle, or as they called it, a circus.
Once this is realized, and not just intellectually but deeply as an irrevocable feeling, there is a massive revolution of the psyche; of this consciousness, where it is now able to be quiet (at peace, and not in conflict) when it is not needed. Consciousness is needed for survival, it must be used to build homes and gather food, yet not being able to set aside the mind is what allows for chaos/conflict to reign supreme because the mind is chaos/conflict.
Peace.
edit on 9-5-2012 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 10-5-2012 @ 09:12 AM by kwakakev
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy
That is a good assessment and all very valid points in terms of sources of conflict. Many times I do see anger, resentment and hate as reflections of the individual rather than the topic of discussion, but not always. Solving the conflict of consciousness within does help reduce a lot of problems for the individual, but with the complexities of life, problems and conflict still remain. I do acknowledge that the existence of conflict has been a very important process in evolutionary progression, yet I do become concerned and disturbed by the levels of pain and suffering that do result from its continued application.
As with everything, there are reasons for how and why we got here. In consideration that I am responsible for the 9/11, Korean Wall and other sinks of conflict, it fails to make any meaning or sense. In some way I am connected to such events as I am with all of life in being a part of it, but that is as far as I can see it going. War and conflict have been going on this planet for a long time and if I should live or die I see such troubles continuing until humans learn how to get over it, killed by it or replaced by it.
That is a good assessment and all very valid points in terms of sources of conflict. Many times I do see anger, resentment and hate as reflections of the individual rather than the topic of discussion, but not always. Solving the conflict of consciousness within does help reduce a lot of problems for the individual, but with the complexities of life, problems and conflict still remain. I do acknowledge that the existence of conflict has been a very important process in evolutionary progression, yet I do become concerned and disturbed by the levels of pain and suffering that do result from its continued application.
As with everything, there are reasons for how and why we got here. In consideration that I am responsible for the 9/11, Korean Wall and other sinks of conflict, it fails to make any meaning or sense. In some way I am connected to such events as I am with all of life in being a part of it, but that is as far as I can see it going. War and conflict have been going on this planet for a long time and if I should live or die I see such troubles continuing until humans learn how to get over it, killed by it or replaced by it.
reply posted on 10-5-2012 @ 03:33 PM by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by kwakakev
Yes, conflict equates to division, and division equates to evolution or progress in a linear sense. So all our technological advancements are a direct response to conflicts (problems, dilemma's...) Yet beyond basic necessity; beyond basic survival needs, technological advancements offer very little benefit to us when considering the flip side of the coin; its destructive capabilities. For instance, TV was a great tool for information, it allowed people to not only hear the news but also see and learn about what was happening in areas far away from where they lived, it expanded peoples perception of life. However, it has now grown into a tool for the elite to pray off of the unassuming masses, where people are drawn in from an interest in pop culture or sports or the news, and then blasted with advertising and propaganda. So in the end it has actually worked against its original benefits of expanding peoples perceptions by narrowing their focus to superficiality and confusing them with disinformation. So conflict will always be a part of life, but it seems we have a tendency to become addicted to conflict, which makes life less enjoyable. It seems our addiction to "advancement" and "progression", ironically, does us far more harm then good.
And you may not be directly responsible for certain acts of violence and war throughout history, that seems almost silly huh, yet you are responsible for the causes of violence and war in general, which is within us all. Attachment to ideologies, traditions, cultures, views, technological advancement... and so on, are causes of violence and war. In the dualistic universe we live in, everything has an opposite, so when we are identified with something then we are setting ourselves up for conflict. The more we are identified with, the more potential for conflict there is. As long as these conflicts reside within us, they reside within the world. Krishnamurti is simply saying, see that the entirety of consciousness is conflict (the "I" thought in conflict with all the other thoughts) and when this is truly done, there is a revolution in the psyche, it can now become very quiet, with no need to continuously identify with things.
I believe if maybe even 35% of humans did this, our world would be completely different. Wars, greed, gaps between races, ethnicity's, genders and social classes, would practically disappear, naturally. The only way to get to that number (35%) though is by doing it ourselves, first, and then showing others it is possible. If they don't want to do it, then so be it, maybe their children will.
Peace
Peace.
Yes, conflict equates to division, and division equates to evolution or progress in a linear sense. So all our technological advancements are a direct response to conflicts (problems, dilemma's...) Yet beyond basic necessity; beyond basic survival needs, technological advancements offer very little benefit to us when considering the flip side of the coin; its destructive capabilities. For instance, TV was a great tool for information, it allowed people to not only hear the news but also see and learn about what was happening in areas far away from where they lived, it expanded peoples perception of life. However, it has now grown into a tool for the elite to pray off of the unassuming masses, where people are drawn in from an interest in pop culture or sports or the news, and then blasted with advertising and propaganda. So in the end it has actually worked against its original benefits of expanding peoples perceptions by narrowing their focus to superficiality and confusing them with disinformation. So conflict will always be a part of life, but it seems we have a tendency to become addicted to conflict, which makes life less enjoyable. It seems our addiction to "advancement" and "progression", ironically, does us far more harm then good.
And you may not be directly responsible for certain acts of violence and war throughout history, that seems almost silly huh, yet you are responsible for the causes of violence and war in general, which is within us all. Attachment to ideologies, traditions, cultures, views, technological advancement... and so on, are causes of violence and war. In the dualistic universe we live in, everything has an opposite, so when we are identified with something then we are setting ourselves up for conflict. The more we are identified with, the more potential for conflict there is. As long as these conflicts reside within us, they reside within the world. Krishnamurti is simply saying, see that the entirety of consciousness is conflict (the "I" thought in conflict with all the other thoughts) and when this is truly done, there is a revolution in the psyche, it can now become very quiet, with no need to continuously identify with things.
I believe if maybe even 35% of humans did this, our world would be completely different. Wars, greed, gaps between races, ethnicity's, genders and social classes, would practically disappear, naturally. The only way to get to that number (35%) though is by doing it ourselves, first, and then showing others it is possible. If they don't want to do it, then so be it, maybe their children will.
Peace
Peace.
reply posted on 12-5-2012 @ 12:35 AM by kwakakev
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy
In terms of the sources of conflict, the processes of life with genetic competition have been going on since the first bacteria emerged. Competition is much older than humans and without it the Earth would look like the dry, lifeless, barren surface of the moon. Over the ages this continued struggle has lead to the strong, fit and capable bodies we have today.
To realistically attempt to solve worldly problems it is important to recognise the importance that competition does play. If humans are to continue to evolve and become even stronger and more capable over future generations then competition does need to be supported and promoted. Where I have issue is with the more extreme version of competition which is conflict and the pain that results.
I am still trying to understand just what exactly is meant by this. If world conflict could be solved by a simple realisation then great, I want it. I expect that these global challenges are a bit more difficult to achieve though. I do know that for myself, a more peaceful state of being was achieved when I stopped being concerned with conflicting social values and focused more specifically on my own values.
And you may not be directly responsible for certain acts of violence and war throughout history, that seems almost silly huh, yet you are responsible for the causes of violence and war in general, which is within us all.
In terms of the sources of conflict, the processes of life with genetic competition have been going on since the first bacteria emerged. Competition is much older than humans and without it the Earth would look like the dry, lifeless, barren surface of the moon. Over the ages this continued struggle has lead to the strong, fit and capable bodies we have today.
To realistically attempt to solve worldly problems it is important to recognise the importance that competition does play. If humans are to continue to evolve and become even stronger and more capable over future generations then competition does need to be supported and promoted. Where I have issue is with the more extreme version of competition which is conflict and the pain that results.
Krishnamurti is simply saying, see that the entirety of consciousness is conflict (the "I" thought in conflict with all the other thoughts)
I am still trying to understand just what exactly is meant by this. If world conflict could be solved by a simple realisation then great, I want it. I expect that these global challenges are a bit more difficult to achieve though. I do know that for myself, a more peaceful state of being was achieved when I stopped being concerned with conflicting social values and focused more specifically on my own values.
reply posted on 12-5-2012 @ 11:03 AM by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by kwakakev
Right, I know what you are saying. Yet, we are not trying to stop the process of life, rather allow it to continue with as little contrived interference as possible. Just by our very existence we are in competition with other life forms. So we are not trying to stop this, it would be rather impossible to do anyways unless we all just killed ourselves. However, we also don't need to "promote" competition either, especially not with societal systems or organized ideologies/religions. By doing so, we are encouraging the "more extreme version(s) of competition", which all lead to war, genocide, enslavement, poverty, fascism, racism... and so on.
It is not simple, and Krishnamurti never said it was. The realization must happen though, and it must happen within all of us. Because of this, it is extremely difficult in fact, and in my honest opinion I don't think it will happen. As long as conflict resides within our minds there will be conflict (and not merely natural competition, but greed, war, slavery, exploitation, murder, rape...) within the world, this is absolutely undeniable. As long as this consciousness is fragmented, it is going to radiate that fragmentation outward to the world. And the root of that fragmentation is the "I" thought versus all the other thoughts.
"I should or shouldn't do this or that" "I am good/bad" "I want to become something more than I am, I want to become a better human being..." All this is the "I" thought attempting to assume the position of dictatorial controller over all the other thoughts. There is the assumption that there is an entity somewhere within the body that is in control of the mind and body, like the wizard behind the curtain pulling levers in the wizard of oz. But this too is just a thought amongst a plethora of thoughts. If you have every wondered why we are so prone to bow down to and sheepishly follow authority, this is the root.
Peace.
In terms of the sources of conflict, the processes of life with genetic competition have been going on since the first bacteria emerged. Competition is much older than humans and without it the Earth would look like the dry, lifeless, barren surface of the moon. Over the ages this continued struggle has lead to the strong, fit and capable bodies we have today. To realistically attempt to solve worldly problems it is important to recognise the importance that competition does play. If humans are to continue to evolve and become even stronger and more capable over future generations then competition does need to be supported and promoted. Where I have issue is with the more extreme version of competition which is conflict and the pain that results.
Right, I know what you are saying. Yet, we are not trying to stop the process of life, rather allow it to continue with as little contrived interference as possible. Just by our very existence we are in competition with other life forms. So we are not trying to stop this, it would be rather impossible to do anyways unless we all just killed ourselves. However, we also don't need to "promote" competition either, especially not with societal systems or organized ideologies/religions. By doing so, we are encouraging the "more extreme version(s) of competition", which all lead to war, genocide, enslavement, poverty, fascism, racism... and so on.
I am still trying to understand just what exactly is meant by this. If world conflict could be solved by a simple realisation then great, I want it. I expect that these global challenges are a bit more difficult to achieve though. I do know that for myself, a more peaceful state of being was achieved when I stopped being concerned with conflicting social values and focused more specifically on my own values.
It is not simple, and Krishnamurti never said it was. The realization must happen though, and it must happen within all of us. Because of this, it is extremely difficult in fact, and in my honest opinion I don't think it will happen. As long as conflict resides within our minds there will be conflict (and not merely natural competition, but greed, war, slavery, exploitation, murder, rape...) within the world, this is absolutely undeniable. As long as this consciousness is fragmented, it is going to radiate that fragmentation outward to the world. And the root of that fragmentation is the "I" thought versus all the other thoughts.
"I should or shouldn't do this or that" "I am good/bad" "I want to become something more than I am, I want to become a better human being..." All this is the "I" thought attempting to assume the position of dictatorial controller over all the other thoughts. There is the assumption that there is an entity somewhere within the body that is in control of the mind and body, like the wizard behind the curtain pulling levers in the wizard of oz. But this too is just a thought amongst a plethora of thoughts. If you have every wondered why we are so prone to bow down to and sheepishly follow authority, this is the root.
Peace.
reply posted on 15-5-2012 @ 08:55 AM by Sahabi
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy
Hello LifeIsEnergy.
This was a very insightful dialogue between Jiddu Krishnamurti and Alain Naude.
I love when Jiddu stresses that absolute facts must be felt and realized, rather than simply stored as accumulated knowledge or mere mental reasoning. This is true, because without an actualized realization and feeling for such truths, we will lay idle in accords to our previously established preconditioned systems (mental, emotional, choices, actions, beliefs, views, etc.).
This understanding really drives home the necessity for unconditional compassion. When we realize that all points of separation are merely illusionary, it makes no sense to inflict, contribute, or condone any level of suffering onto our Self or 'others.'
With such a realization we are that which is to be saved, we are the savior, we are the salvation, and we are that which the saved are being saved from.
Superficially such realization appears religious, but with further consideration, all is for the sake of Self in the form of you, in the form of me, in the tree and the water. There is nothing to tie down or hold back (Latin: religare) when the illusion of separation is understood. There is no need for indoctrination or dogma.
I highly agree with this statement.
Rallying, protesting, and revolting for the sake of change is indeed immature and does not address the core or fundamentals of anything. This is illustrated by the old adage; "When you are looking into a mirror, you do not ask the mirror to smile. If you want to see a smile, you must smile."
As Alain Naude put it, we'd simply be "juggling" ideologies, wants, and desires which are all the same thing regardless of superficial difference. If we don't like a thing, instead of juggling, simply do or don't do. Find Peace in it, and be what we want instead of outwardly protesting for what we want.
Instead of revolt or protest for one change into another change, and then into another change.... (all change actually being the previous change of the same thing).... instead of such cyclical imprisonment into the illusionary separation, all that is needed is the actual realized and felt understanding of the pure interconnectedness of all inward and outward separation.
Computers operate less efficiently and are more prone to problems once an unmaintainable level of separation and compartmentalization has been reached. Eventually a defragmentation is needed to bring the pieces back together. The same pieces of the same thing, only superficially different. A system defrag can be illustrative of such a unitary movement within the consciousness.
Hello LifeIsEnergy.
This was a very insightful dialogue between Jiddu Krishnamurti and Alain Naude.
"That means we are still keeping the outer and the inner as two separate movements. And I feel that is a totally wrong approach.
I love when Jiddu stresses that absolute facts must be felt and realized, rather than simply stored as accumulated knowledge or mere mental reasoning. This is true, because without an actualized realization and feeling for such truths, we will lay idle in accords to our previously established preconditioned systems (mental, emotional, choices, actions, beliefs, views, etc.).
"So when one realizes that the world is me and I am the world, then my action is not separative, is not the individual opposed to the community; nor the importance of the individual and his salvation. When one realizes that the world is me and I am the world, then whatever action takes place, whatever change takes place, that will change the whole of the consciousness of man."
This understanding really drives home the necessity for unconditional compassion. When we realize that all points of separation are merely illusionary, it makes no sense to inflict, contribute, or condone any level of suffering onto our Self or 'others.'
"if each one of us saw the truth of this, that the consciousness of the world is mine, and mine is the world's; and if each one of us felt the responsibility of that - the politician, the scientist, the engineer, the bureaucrat, the business man - if everybody felt that, what then? And it is our job to make them feel this; that is the function of the religious man, surely?
So then it is one movement. It is not an individual movement and his salvation. It is the salvation, if you like to use that word, of the whole of man's consciousness.
With such a realization we are that which is to be saved, we are the savior, we are the salvation, and we are that which the saved are being saved from.
Superficially such realization appears religious, but with further consideration, all is for the sake of Self in the form of you, in the form of me, in the tree and the water. There is nothing to tie down or hold back (Latin: religare) when the illusion of separation is understood. There is no need for indoctrination or dogma.
"Physical revolution is the most absurd, primitive, unintelligent destruction."
I highly agree with this statement.
Rallying, protesting, and revolting for the sake of change is indeed immature and does not address the core or fundamentals of anything. This is illustrated by the old adage; "When you are looking into a mirror, you do not ask the mirror to smile. If you want to see a smile, you must smile."
As Alain Naude put it, we'd simply be "juggling" ideologies, wants, and desires which are all the same thing regardless of superficial difference. If we don't like a thing, instead of juggling, simply do or don't do. Find Peace in it, and be what we want instead of outwardly protesting for what we want.
Instead of revolt or protest for one change into another change, and then into another change.... (all change actually being the previous change of the same thing).... instead of such cyclical imprisonment into the illusionary separation, all that is needed is the actual realized and felt understanding of the pure interconnectedness of all inward and outward separation.
Computers operate less efficiently and are more prone to problems once an unmaintainable level of separation and compartmentalization has been reached. Eventually a defragmentation is needed to bring the pieces back together. The same pieces of the same thing, only superficially different. A system defrag can be illustrative of such a unitary movement within the consciousness.
reply posted on 15-5-2012 @ 09:33 AM by Sahabi
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy
During the dialogue Alain Naude said;
I realize as an actuality the illusion of separation... that I am the world, the world is me, the content and the container are the same, the thought and thinker are the same, and that the consciousness of the world is my consciousness. I understand the conflict in the intellect and psyche, of fragmentation, suppression, and control. I understand that even the effort of will causes conflict and fragmentation.
Now back to Alain's earlier quote, doesn't the absence of will "reduce one to a state of considerable vagueness and inertia?" What is there without will, desire, want, or choice? Not the superficial wants... but without want or will, how does anything get accomplished? Preparing a meal, reading a book, writing a letter, inventing free/clean energy, etc.?
Can we say that life itself IS conflict? Therefore conflict is us and we must accept it?
I understand the infinite points of fragmentation within us and outside us... but I do not understand life without will, want, or desire. Is this something you may be able to help me understand? Even when I am utmostly aware and mindful, I am acting in accords to an earlier thought, want, or desire... which is in itself conflict.
When there is no conflict, meaning no will... wouldn't I just sit in one place until I die of starvation, dehydration, or nature?
I experience moments of complete observation, the unity between the object being observed and the observer... only for brief, fleeting moments. Once again I am "snapped out" of such an unfragmented mind with the experience of living life. I must want, do, decide, and use effort/will in order to continue to the next moment. If not I am a catatonic fool, oblivious to stimuli.
Is it even applicably possible to be free of conflict and fragmentation, or is conflict and fragmentation what life and consciousness actually is?
For example, if All is utterly unified into One, is this the state of absolute stillness, void, and peace? Is this conflict and fragmentation what actually allows for One to superficially and illusionarily "fragment" into all the differences of relativity and subjectivity that we all experience?
Is this what Jiddu meant by "conflict is consciousness"?
Meaning, without conflict there is no thing? So is conflict to be embraced instead of shunned? Or is conflict a mere pole to another duality?
During the dialogue Alain Naude said;
"But people will say, hearing what you have said, understanding it imperfectly, they will say: can that consciousness be emptied, and when that consciousness is emptied, supposing this were possible, doesn't that reduce one to a state of considerable vagueness and inertia?"
I realize as an actuality the illusion of separation... that I am the world, the world is me, the content and the container are the same, the thought and thinker are the same, and that the consciousness of the world is my consciousness. I understand the conflict in the intellect and psyche, of fragmentation, suppression, and control. I understand that even the effort of will causes conflict and fragmentation.
Now back to Alain's earlier quote, doesn't the absence of will "reduce one to a state of considerable vagueness and inertia?" What is there without will, desire, want, or choice? Not the superficial wants... but without want or will, how does anything get accomplished? Preparing a meal, reading a book, writing a letter, inventing free/clean energy, etc.?
Can we say that life itself IS conflict? Therefore conflict is us and we must accept it?
I understand the infinite points of fragmentation within us and outside us... but I do not understand life without will, want, or desire. Is this something you may be able to help me understand? Even when I am utmostly aware and mindful, I am acting in accords to an earlier thought, want, or desire... which is in itself conflict.
When there is no conflict, meaning no will... wouldn't I just sit in one place until I die of starvation, dehydration, or nature?
"Do we realize that the observer, seeing the content, examining, analysing, looking at it all, is the content itself? That the observer is the content?"
"I observe that redtailed hawk flying by. I see it. When I observe that bird, am I observing with the image I have about that bird, or am I merely observing? Is there only mere observation? If there is an image, which is words, memory and all the rest of it, then there is an observer watching the bird go by. If there is only observation, then there is no observer.
Otherwise there is freedom, freedom to observe. So radical revolution in consciousness, and of consciousness, takes place when there is no conflict at all.
I experience moments of complete observation, the unity between the object being observed and the observer... only for brief, fleeting moments. Once again I am "snapped out" of such an unfragmented mind with the experience of living life. I must want, do, decide, and use effort/will in order to continue to the next moment. If not I am a catatonic fool, oblivious to stimuli.
Is it even applicably possible to be free of conflict and fragmentation, or is conflict and fragmentation what life and consciousness actually is?
For example, if All is utterly unified into One, is this the state of absolute stillness, void, and peace? Is this conflict and fragmentation what actually allows for One to superficially and illusionarily "fragment" into all the differences of relativity and subjectivity that we all experience?
Is this what Jiddu meant by "conflict is consciousness"?
Meaning, without conflict there is no thing? So is conflict to be embraced instead of shunned? Or is conflict a mere pole to another duality?
reply posted on 17-5-2012 @ 02:53 PM by LifeIsEnergy
Originally posted by Sahabi
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy
Thanks Sahabi, you have added some great perspective taking on this subject so far. I am going to address some of the things you said out of order from how you said them, just because it seems best.
In one sense, yes, life is conflict and since we are life, conflict is us and we must accept all of this. In fact, we must see this intensely as true, not just philosophically or conceptually, but really see how all of life is in some way in conflict with each other. Trees fight each other for sun light, water fights land for space, animals fight each other for food and shelter... and so on. We do not need to read books to understand these things, they are self-evident.
But it can also be understood in another way, which is, all there is is life, life that has taken many different forms, but nonetheless all of it is just the movement of life. So in this way, there really is no conflict because it is all one movement of life. Different forms of life arise and fall, and this is inevitable, yet it is all just on movement of life. In this way, the fragmentation between forms has been seen to be superficial and not absolute, thus any perceived conflict is transitory and illusory.
As Krishnamurti and Mr. Naude pointed out in this conversation, the fragmentation in consciousness is the "I" thought presuming ownership over the entire mind, acting as the "boss", dividing it up into all sorts of categories and qualities. Will, desire, want and choice are all derivatives of this "I" thought. "I desire to be more than who I am, and I am going to will that into being through choice", this is what we say. This is the simple misunderstanding that the Buddha spoke of that causes all our suffering. Without this "I", life still continues. Preparing a meal can still happen, reading a book can still happen, revolting against society can still happen. In fact, all this happens much more smoothly and properly with the "I" removed. Hunger arises and so eating takes place, a curiosity for information arises and so reading takes place, a need to push back against oppressive forces arises and so revolution takes place.
Life continues without a will, want or desire. These are all very western concepts that attempt to promote and reason our exploitation, greed and violence. Will is not needed to breath, yet breathing happens. Want is not needed to find food, yet hunger arises and finding food happens. Desire is not needed to build a shelter, yet the need for shelter arises and a shelter is built. Will, want and desire are all products of the "I" thought. In fact, I would have to will, want or desire to stop breathing, not eat and not build a shelter for these things to not happen. "I" is the perceived separation from life, the doer, the chooser, thus it is what causes the conflict. Remove it and life continues without conflict.
First conflict and fragmentation must be seen as what consciousness actually is. Right now there is confusion, despair, sorrow, suffering, anger, frustration... and so on, and this is all conflict. See this first, and in seeing its fallibility the mind begins to become quieter. Out of this silence comes clear perception, which should see the root cause of this conflict, the "I" thought. Now, no longer is the "I" thought seen as the "boss" or 'good guy' of the mind, but rather the trouble maker, the Mara, which should not be followed blindly. Soon the "I" thought collapses on itself and ceases to exist, thus there is no more fragmentation and conflict within consciousness. Of course, due to environmental influences, this "I" thought may re-arise, but it will no longer have such a lasting and impactful grip upon the mind.
Peace friend.
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy
Thanks Sahabi, you have added some great perspective taking on this subject so far. I am going to address some of the things you said out of order from how you said them, just because it seems best.
Can we say that life itself IS conflict? Therefore conflict is us and we must accept it?
In one sense, yes, life is conflict and since we are life, conflict is us and we must accept all of this. In fact, we must see this intensely as true, not just philosophically or conceptually, but really see how all of life is in some way in conflict with each other. Trees fight each other for sun light, water fights land for space, animals fight each other for food and shelter... and so on. We do not need to read books to understand these things, they are self-evident.
But it can also be understood in another way, which is, all there is is life, life that has taken many different forms, but nonetheless all of it is just the movement of life. So in this way, there really is no conflict because it is all one movement of life. Different forms of life arise and fall, and this is inevitable, yet it is all just on movement of life. In this way, the fragmentation between forms has been seen to be superficial and not absolute, thus any perceived conflict is transitory and illusory.
Now back to Alain's earlier quote, doesn't the absence of will "reduce one to a state of considerable vagueness and inertia?" What is there without will, desire, want, or choice? Not the superficial wants... but without want or will, how does anything get accomplished? Preparing a meal, reading a book, writing a letter, inventing free/clean energy, etc.?
As Krishnamurti and Mr. Naude pointed out in this conversation, the fragmentation in consciousness is the "I" thought presuming ownership over the entire mind, acting as the "boss", dividing it up into all sorts of categories and qualities. Will, desire, want and choice are all derivatives of this "I" thought. "I desire to be more than who I am, and I am going to will that into being through choice", this is what we say. This is the simple misunderstanding that the Buddha spoke of that causes all our suffering. Without this "I", life still continues. Preparing a meal can still happen, reading a book can still happen, revolting against society can still happen. In fact, all this happens much more smoothly and properly with the "I" removed. Hunger arises and so eating takes place, a curiosity for information arises and so reading takes place, a need to push back against oppressive forces arises and so revolution takes place.
I understand the infinite points of fragmentation within us and outside us... but I do not understand life without will, want, or desire. Is this something you may be able to help me understand? Even when I am utmostly aware and mindful, I am acting in accords to an earlier thought, want, or desire... which is in itself conflict.
When there is no conflict, meaning no will... wouldn't I just sit in one place until I die of starvation, dehydration, or nature?
Life continues without a will, want or desire. These are all very western concepts that attempt to promote and reason our exploitation, greed and violence. Will is not needed to breath, yet breathing happens. Want is not needed to find food, yet hunger arises and finding food happens. Desire is not needed to build a shelter, yet the need for shelter arises and a shelter is built. Will, want and desire are all products of the "I" thought. In fact, I would have to will, want or desire to stop breathing, not eat and not build a shelter for these things to not happen. "I" is the perceived separation from life, the doer, the chooser, thus it is what causes the conflict. Remove it and life continues without conflict.
Is it even applicably possible to be free of conflict and fragmentation, or is conflict and fragmentation what life and consciousness actually is?
First conflict and fragmentation must be seen as what consciousness actually is. Right now there is confusion, despair, sorrow, suffering, anger, frustration... and so on, and this is all conflict. See this first, and in seeing its fallibility the mind begins to become quieter. Out of this silence comes clear perception, which should see the root cause of this conflict, the "I" thought. Now, no longer is the "I" thought seen as the "boss" or 'good guy' of the mind, but rather the trouble maker, the Mara, which should not be followed blindly. Soon the "I" thought collapses on itself and ceases to exist, thus there is no more fragmentation and conflict within consciousness. Of course, due to environmental influences, this "I" thought may re-arise, but it will no longer have such a lasting and impactful grip upon the mind.
Peace friend.
edit on 17-5-2012 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)
Pages: ^^TOP^^
The number 13: The Power behind it. How to Protect yourself in this spiritual war..
Posted 13 days ago with 22 member flags
Posted 13 days ago with 22 member flags
Triptych Doorway, Key to the Sacred Science Spirituality of the Mother Civilization
Posted 11 days ago with 21 member flags
Posted 11 days ago with 21 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
New ObamaGate Scandal; State Department Sold Stingers to Al Queda
Breaking Political News: 8 hours ago, 37 flags
Breaking Political News: 8 hours ago, 37 flags
Obama: There's no longer time for excuses for black men
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 11 hours ago, 12 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 11 hours ago, 12 flags
Rossi’s E-Cat Cold Fusion Reactor Validated by Third-Party Tests
Science & Technology: 8 hours ago, 11 flags
Science & Technology: 8 hours ago, 11 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
May 20, 2013 | Full List of 171 Documented Israeli Cease Fire Violations – Updated
Middle East Issues: 12 hours ago, 121 replies
Middle East Issues: 12 hours ago, 121 replies
This could be the MOST IMPORTANT thread you have ever read on Ats
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 14 hours ago, 59 replies
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 14 hours ago, 59 replies
Obama: There's no longer time for excuses for black men
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 11 hours ago, 55 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 11 hours ago, 55 replies
Preschools (in Australia) may get right to bar unvaccinated children
Medical Issues & Conspiracies: 11 hours ago, 49 replies
Medical Issues & Conspiracies: 11 hours ago, 49 replies
New ObamaGate Scandal; State Department Sold Stingers to Al Queda
Breaking Political News: 8 hours ago, 49 replies
Breaking Political News: 8 hours ago, 49 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.431 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.431 seconds
