It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conversations with a Sage: Jiddu Krishnamurti in “Solving worldly problems”

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
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!




posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Naude: Would you like to explain that?

Krishnamurti: I, as a human being, realize that the world is me and I am the world: realize, feel deeply committed, am passionately aware of this fact.

Naude: Yes, that my action is in fact the world; my behaviour is the only world there is, because the events in the world are behaviour. And behaviour is the inner. So the inner and the outer are one because the events of history, the events of life, are in fact this point of contact between the inner and the outer. It is in fact the behaviour of man.

Krishnamurti: So the consciousness of the world is my consciousness.

Naude: Yes.

Krishnamurti: Now the crisis is in this consciousness, not in organization, not in bettering the roads - tearing down the hills to build more roads.

Naude: Bigger tanks, intercontinental missiles.

Krishnamurti: When there is a change in this consciousness it affects the whole consciousness of the world. I don't know if you see that?

Naude: It is an extraordinary fact.

Krishnamurti: It is a fact.

Naude: It is consciousness that is in disorder; there is no disorder anywhere else.

Krishnamurti: Obviously!

Naude: Therefore the ills of the world are the ills of human consciousness, and the ills of human consciousness are my ills, my malady, my disorder.

Krishnamurti: Now when I realize that my consciousness is the consciousness of the world, and the consciousness of the world is me, whatever change that takes place in me affects the whole of
consciousness.

Naude: To this people always say: that's all very well, I may change, but there will still be a war in Indo-China!

Krishnamurti: Quite right, there will be.

Naude: And ghettos and overpopulation.

Krishnamurti: Of course, there will be. But 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?

Naude: This is an enormous thing.

Krishnamurti: Wait, let me go on. 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.

Naude: The wholeness, and the health of consciousness itself, which is one thing and in which is contained what appears to be the outer, and what appears to be the inner.

Krishnamurti: That's right. Let's keep to that one point.

Naude: : So what you are speaking about is in fact that health, that sanity, and that wholeness of consciousness, which always has been in fact an indivisible entity.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that's right. Now when the people who want to create a different kind of world, the educators, the writers, the organisers, when they realize the world as it is now is their responsibility, then the whole of the consciousness of man begins to change. Which is what is happening in another direction, only they are emphasizing organization, division; they are doing exactly the same thing.

Naude: In a negative way.

Krishnamurti: In a destructive way. So from that the question arises: can this human consciousness, which is me - which is the community, which is the society, which is the culture, which is all the horrors that are produced by me in the context of the society, in the culture which is me - can this consciousness undergo a radical change? That is the question. Not escape into the supposed divine,
not escape. Because when we understand this change in consciousness the divine is there, you don't have to seek it.

Naude: Would you please explain what this change in consciousness consists of?

Krishnamurti: That's what we are going to talk about now.

Naude: And then perhaps we can ask about the divine if it arises.

Krishnamurti: (Pause) First of all, is there any possibility of a change in consciousness? Or is any change made consciously no change at all? To talk about a change in consciousness implies changing from this to that.

Naude: And both this and that are within consciousness.

Krishnamurti: That is what I want to establish first. That when we say there must be a change in consciousness, it is still within the field of consciousness.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Naude: The way we see the trouble, and the way we see the solution, which we call change - that is all within the same area.

Krishnamurti: All within the same area and therefore no change at all. That is, the content of consciousness is consciousness and the two are not separate. Let's be clear on that point too.
Consciousness is made up of all the things that have been collected by man as experience, as knowledge, as misery, confusion, destruction, violence - all that is consciousness.

Naude: Plus so-called solutions.

Krishnamurti: God, no-God, various theories about God, all that
is consciousness. When we talk about change in consciousness we
are still changing the pieces from one corner to the other.

Naude: Yes.

Krishnamurti: Moving one quality into another corner of the field.

Naude: Juggling with the contents of this huge box.

Krishnamurti: Yes, juggling with the contents. And therefore...

Naude: We are changing variables in the same set of things.

Krishnamurti: That's right. You have put it perfectly, better than I have. When we talk about changing, we are really thinking of juggling with the contents - right? Now that implies a juggler and the thing with which he is juggling. But it is still within the field of consciousness.

Naude: There are two questions which arise. Are you saying that there is no consciousness at all outside of the content of consciousness? And secondly, that there is no entity at all to juggle, there is no entity called `me' outside of this content of consciousness?

Krishnamurti: Obviously not.

Naude: These are two big statements, Sir. Would you be kind enough to explain them?

Krishnamurti: What is the first question?

Naude: The first thing you are saying, if I have understood correctly, is: that this consciousness which we are discussing, which is all we are and all we have, and which we have seen is the
problem itself, you are saying that this consciousness is its very content, and that there is nothing to be called consciousness outside of the content of consciousness?

Krishnamurti: Absolutely right.

Naude: Are you saying, outside of man's problems, outside of his misery, outside of his thinking, outside of the formulations of his mind, there is nothing at all we call consciousness?

Krishnamurti: Absolutely right.

Naude: This is a big statement. Would you explain this? We all think - and this has been postulated by Indian religions since the beginning of time - that there is a super-consciousness outside of this shell which is the consciousness we are talking about.

Krishnamurti: To find out if there is something beyond this consciousness, I must understand the content of this consciousness. The mind must go beyond itself. Then I shall find out if there is something other than this or not. But to stipulate that there is has no meaning, it is just a speculation.

Naude: So are you saying that what we commonly call consciousness, and what we are talking about, is the very content of this consciousness? The container and contained are an indivisible thing?

Krishnamurti: That's right.

Naude: And the second point you are making is: that there is no entity to decide, to will, and to juggle, when the contents to be juggled are absent.

Krishnamurti: That is, my consciousness is the consciousness of the world, and the consciousness of the world is me. This is a truth, not just my invention or dependent on your acceptance. It is an absolute truth. Also the content is consciousness: without the content there is no consciousness. Now when we want to change the content we are juggling.

Naude: The content is juggling itself, because you have a third point, that there is nobody outside of this content to do any juggling at all.

Krishnamurti: Quite right.

Naude: So the juggler and the content are one, and the container and the content are one.

Krishnamurti: The thinker who within this consciousness says that he must change, is consciousness trying to change. I think that is fairly clear.

Naude: So that the world, the consciousness and the entity who supposedly will change it, are all the same entity, masquerading, as it were in three different roles.

Krishnamurti: If that is so, then what is a human being to do to bring about a total emptying of the content of consciousness? How is this particular consciousness, which is me and the world with all
its miseries, how is that to undergo complete change? How is the mind - which is consciousness, with all its content, with the accumulated knowledge of the past - how is that mind to empty itself of all its content?



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Naude: 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?

Krishnamurti: On the contrary. To have come to this point requires a great deal of enquiry, a great deal of reason, logic, and with it comes intelligence.

Naude: Because some people may think that the empty consciousness, which you speak about, is something like the consciousness of the child at birth.

Krishnamurti: No, Sir, not at all. Let's go slowly at this, step by step. Let's begin again. My consciousness is the consciousness of the world. The world is me and the content of my consciousness is the content of the world. The content of consciousness is consciousness itself.

Naude: And also that is the entity who says he is conscious.

Krishnamurti: Now I am asking myself, realizing I am that, what is then changed?

Naude: What is changed which will solve these three sets of problems that are really one?

Krishnamurti: What is implied by change? What is implied by revolution? - not physical revolution.

Naude: We have gone beyond that.

Krishnamurti: Physical revolution is the most absurd, primitive, unintelligent destruction.

Naude: It is fragmentation in this consciousness.

Krishnamurti: Yes.

Naude: Are you asking what it is which will restore order to this consciousness? - an order which is whole.

Krishnamurti: Can there be order within this consciousness?

Naude: Is that the next step?

Krishnamurti: That is what you are asking.

Naude: Yes. Since we see that the disorder, which is the sorrow and the suffering, is the disorder in this indivisible consciousness, the next question must be: what are we going to do about it?

Krishnamurti: Yes.

Naude: And since there is no entity who can do something about it...

Krishnamurti: Wait, don't jump to that immediately.

Naude: Because we have seen that the disorder is the entity.

Krishnamurti: Do we realize that? No. Do we realize that the thinker is part of this consciousness and is not a separate entity outside this consciousness? 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?

Naude: Yes.

Krishnamurti: But stating a truth is one thing, the realization of it is another.

Naude: That's right. I think we do not fully understand that there is no entity separate from this thing we are trying to change.

Krishnamurti: When we talk of change it seems to imply that there is an entity separate within the consciousness, who can bring about a transformation.

Naude: We think that somehow we can step aside from the mess and look at it and juggle with it. We always tell ourselves, "Well, I'm still here to do something about it." And so we juggle more and more.

Krishnamurti: More mess, more confusion.

Naude: A change of decor and things get worse.

Krishnamurti: The consciousness of the world is my consciousness. In that consciousness is all the content of human endeavour, human misery, human cruelty, mischief, all human activities are within that consciousness. Within that consciousness man has brought about this entity which says, "I am separate from my consciousness." The observer there says, "I am different from the thing observed." The thinker says, "My thoughts are different from me." First, is that so?

Naude: We all believe that the two entities are different. We say to ourselves, "I must not be angry, I must not be sorrowful, I must improve, I must change myself." We are saying this either tacitly
or consciously all the time.

Krishnamurti: Because we think these two are separate. Now we are trying to point out that they are not separate, that they are one, because if there is no thought at all there is no thinker.

Naude: That is right.

Krishnamurti: If there is nothing observed there is no observer.

Naude: There are a hundred observers and a hundred thinkers during the course of the day.

Krishnamurti: I am just saying: is that so? 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.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Naude: Would you explain why there is an observer when I look at the bird with an image?

Krishnamurti: Because the observer is the past. The observer is the censor, is the accumulated knowledge, experience, memory; that is the observer, with that he observes the world. His accumulated knowledge is different from your accumulated knowledge.

Naude: Are you saying that this total consciousness which is the problem, is not different from the observer who is going to deal with it, and this would seem to bring us to a deadlock, because the thing we are trying to change is the person trying to change it? And the question is: what then?

Krishnamurti: That is just it. If the observer is the observed, what is the nature of change in consciousness? That is what we are trying to find out. We realize that there must be a radical revolution
in consciousness. How is this to take place? Is it to take place through the observer? When the observer is separate from the observed, then this change is merely juggling with the various contents of consciousness.

Naude: That's right.

Krishnamurti: Now let's go slowly. One realizes that the observer is the observed, the thinker is the thought, that is a fact. Let's stop there a minute.

Naude: Are you saying that the thinker is the totality of all these thoughts which create the confusion?

Krishnamurti: The thinker is the thought, whether it is many, or one.

Naude: But there is a difference, because the thinker thinks of himself as some sort of crystallized concrete entity. Even through this discussion, the thinker sees himself as the concrete entity to whom all these thoughts, all this confusion belongs.

Krishnamurti: That concrete entity, as you say, is the result of thought.

Naude: That concrete entity is...

Krishnamurti: ...put together by thought.

Naude: Put together by his thoughts.

Krishnamurti: By thought, not "his", by thought.

Naude: Yes.

Krishnamurti: And thought sees that there must be a change. This concrete entity, which is the result of thought, hopes to change the content.

Naude: Itself.

Krishnamurti: And so there is a battle between the observer and the observed. The battle consists of trying to control, change, shape, suppress, give a new shape, all that, that is the battle that goes on all the time in our life. But when the mind understands the truth that the observer, the experiencer, the thinker, is the thought, is the experience, is the observed, then what takes place? -knowing that there must be a radical change.

Naude: That is a fact.

Krishnamurti: And when the observer, who wants to change, realizes he is part of what has to be changed?

Naude: That he is in fact a thief pretending to be a policeman to catch himself.

Krishnamurti: Right. So what takes place?

Naude: You see, Sir, people don't believe this; they say, "By exercising will I have stopped smoking, by exercising will I have got up earlier, I have lost weight and I have learnt languages; they say, "I am the master of my destiny, I can change" – everybody really believes this. Everybody believes that he is capable somehow of exercising will upon his own life, upon his own behaviour, and his own thinking.

Krishnamurti: Which means, one has to understand the meaning of effort. What it is, why effort exists at all. Is that the way to bring about a transformation in consciousness? Through effort, through will?

Naude: Yes.

Krishnamurti: Which means what? Change through conflict. When there is the operation of will, it is a form of resistance; to overcome, to suppress, to deny, to escape - all that is will in action. That means life is then a constant battle.

Naude: Are you saying that simply one element in this consciousness is dominating another?

Krishnamurti: Obviously. One fragment dominates another fragment.

Naude: And that there is still conflict? There is still disorder by that very fact. Yes, this is clear.

Krishnamurti: So, the central fact still remains. There must be a radical transformation in consciousness and of consciousness. Now, how is this to be brought about? That is the real question.

Naude: Yes.

Krishnamurti: We have approached it by thinking that one fragment is superior to the rest, to the other fragments within the field of consciousness.

Naude: Indeed we have.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Krishnamurti: Now that fragment which we call superior, intelligence, intellect, reason, logic, is the product of the many other fragments. One fragment has assumed authority over other fragments. But it is still a fragment and therefore there is a battle between it and the many other fragments. So is it possible to see that this fragmentation does not solve our problems?

Naude: Because it causes the division and the conflict, which right from the start was our problem.

Krishnamurti: That is, when there is division between man and woman there is conflict. When there is a division between Germany and England or Russia, there is conflict.

Naude: And all this is division within consciousness itself. Also, the exercise of will upon consciousness is again a division within consciousness.

Krishnamurti: So one has to be free of the idea that through will you can change the content. That is important to understand.

Naude: Yes, that the exercise of will is simply the tyranny of one fragment over another.

Krishnamurti: That's simple. One also realizes that to be free of will is to be free of this fragmentation.

Naude: But religions in the world have always called upon will to come in and do something.

Krishnamurti: Yes. But we are denying the whole of that.

Naude: Yes.

Krishnamurti: So what is a mind to do, or not to do, when it sees will is not the way, when it sees that one fragment taking charge over another fragment is still fragmentation and therefore conflict? - and therefore still within the field of misery. Then what is such a mind to do?

Naude: Yes, this is really the question.

Krishnamurti: Now, for such a mind is there anything to do?

Naude: When you say that, one says, "If there is nothing to do then the circus goes on."

Krishnamurti: No, Sir. Look! The circus goes on only when there is the exercise of will.

Naude: Are you saying that the circus that we have been discussing and trying to change, is in fact made up of will?

Krishnamurti: My will against your will, and so on.

Naude: My will against another part of me.

Krishnamurti: And so on.

Naude: My desire to smoke...

Krishnamurti: That's just it. A mind which starts by saying, "I must change," realizes that one fragment asserting it must change is still in conflict with another fragment, which is part of consciousness. It realizes that. Therefore it also realizes that will, to which man has become accustomed, which he takes for granted is the only way to bring about change...

Naude: ...is not the factor of change.

Krishnamurti: Is not the factor of change. Therefore such a mind has come to quite a different height.

Naude: It has cleared up a great deal.

Krishnamurti: A vast quantity of rubbish.

Naude: It has cleared up the division between the inner and the outer; the division between consciousness and its content. It has cleared up also the division between the conscious entity and the
consciousness belonging to him and the various fragments. And it has cleared up the division between different fragments in that consciousness.

Krishnamurti: So what has happened? What has happened to the mind that has seen all this? Not theoretically but actually felt it and says, "No more will in my life". Which means no more resistance in my life.

Naude: This is so extraordinary it is like finding the sky at the bottom, one day. It is such a great change, it is difficult to say what the extent of that change is.

Krishnamurti: It has already taken place! That is my point.

Naude: You are saying that there is no more will, there is no more effort, there is no more division between the outside and the inside...

Krishnamurti: ...no more fragmentation within consciousness.

Naude: No more fragmentation.

Krishnamurti: That is very important to understand, Sir.

Naude: No more observer separate from what he has observed.

Krishnamurti: Which means what? No fragmentation within consciousness. Which means consciousness only exists when there is conflict between fragments.

Naude: I am not sure that I have understood that. Consciousess is its fragments?

Krishnamurti: Consciousness is its fragments and consciousness is the battle between the fragments.

Naude: Are you saying that there are only fragments because they are in conflict, in battle? When they are not battling together they are not fragments, because they are not acting as parts. The acting of one part on another ceases. That is what it means when you say fragmentation.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Krishnamurti: See what has taken place!

Naude: The fragments disappear when they are not acting against each other.

Krishnamurti: Naturally! When Pakistan and India...

Naude: ...are no longer fighting, there is no more Pakistan and India.

Krishnamurti: Naturally.

Naude: Are you saying that that is the change?

Krishnamurti: Wait, I don't know yet. We'll go into it. A human mind has realized that the world is "me" and I am the world, my consciousness is the consciousness of the world, and the world's consciousness is me. The content of consciousness with all its miseries and so on is consciousness. And within that consciousness there are a thousand fragmentations. One fragment of those many fragments becomes the authority, the censor, the observer, the examiner, the thinker.

Naude: The boss.

Krishnamurti: The boss. And so he maintains fragmentation. See the importance of this! The moment he assumes the authority, he must maintain fragmentation.

Naude: Yes, obviously. Because it is a part of consciousness acting on the rest of consciousness.

Krishnamurti: Therefore he must maintain conflict. And conflict is consciousness.

Naude: You have said that the fragments are consciousness; and are you now saying that the fragments are in fact the content?

Krishnamurti: Of course.

Naude: Fragments are conflict. There is no fragment without conflict?

Krishnamurti: When is consciousness active?

Naude: When it is in conflict.

Krishnamurti: Obviously. Otherwise there is freedom, freedom to observe. So radical revolution in consciousness, and of consciousness, takes place when there is no conflict at all.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
I am not sure how you get to solving worldly problems from declaring that conflict is the foundation of consciousness. Conflict is very much a part of our consciousness as it is a part of this world, but I do view consciousness is more based on pattern recognition, but it is quite a deep and long ongoing debate.



So the consciousness of the world is my consciousness.


I feel like my tiny head would explode if even for a moment I was actually conscious of the full extent of this world. He does present an interesting approach into shared perceptions, ideas, memes and the media as there are still unknown connections in the constructs of thought and understanding.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
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.
edit on 9-5-2012 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
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.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy
 




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.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 




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.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy
 


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.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy
 


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?



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
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.


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)



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join