Der er ikke noget sådant som min lære; du skal ikke forstå læren; du skal forstå dig selv. Hele formålet med læren er at få dig til at indse hvor vigtigt det er at forstå dig selv .

 J.Krishnamurti

Søndag 22. december kl. 10

Dagens emne: Vilje

Det er en lidt lang video, men der er mange spændende emner som K berører. Jeg foreslår at man specielt lytter til tidsperioden: 11.50-29.00 min. henne i videoen.

Med venlig hilsen

Michael M. Sorribes

Søndag 15. december kl. 10

K-dialog

Hej alle,
Her er en tekst til søndag d. 15. dec. Det er en hel tale, men den er ikke så lang. Alligevel kan det måske anbefales at læse den i bidder. Der er så megetstof i den. Som oplæg vil jeg gennemgå udvalgte citater.
Mvh Rasmus

New Delhi 10th Public Talk 11th March 1959 | J. Krishnamurti

Søndag 8. december kl. 10

The End of Conflict?

Extract from “Can we radically bring about a change in ourselves?”

- Jiddu Krishnamurti, Public Talk 1 Madras (Chennai), India - 31 December 1983

So we are now on our journey. We are going to enquire together, first thing, which is, what is thinking? Because we live by thinking. All our actions are based on thinking. Our relationship with each other is part of thinking. The images you have built about your wife and your husband, your guru, your leaders and so on is put together by thought as an image. We'll go into that presently. So thinking is our fundamental instrument. It may think devotionally, romantically, imaginatively, but it's still thinking, whether you are a scientist or a philosopher, mathematician, a biologist, or just an ordinary human beings. Even the most uneducated person thinks - the villager. So, our first enquiry on the journey is to find out what is thinking. Why thinking has become so extraordinarily important. Knowing that thinking is a material process, because it is stored up; knowledge and memory, experience is stored up in the brain cells, and that knowledge, experience, memory, and so thought is limited. This is a fact. There is no complete knowledge about anything. You may think god is complete knowledge or some extra principle, outside agency, and we all like to believe that in all of us there is something of that quality, which is again thought.

So one must understand very clearly the nature of our thinking. Please, observe your own thinking, not what the speaker is telling you, but observe your own thoughts, how they arise, how limited they are. Each one of us is concerned about himself basically, self-centred, and you may try to hide it behind all kinds of words but it is still there. And that self-centred thinking is limited. When you think about yourself, your achievements, your desires, your purposes, your wanting to build temples in the West and temples here, it is still limited. Right? Whatever is limited must bring about conflict, must bring about division. That's a law. If I am divided against you, thinking about myself all day long, it's a very limited process. That's what we are all doing, happily, miserably, successfully, but that's what we are doing. So, thinking being limited, has made us, our whole outlook, limited. Right? I wonder if you get all this. Are you getting tired, or are you asleep? I don't mind if you go to sleep, it's your affair.

Extract from “Can you live without a single problem?”

School Discussion#1, Brockwood Park 1982

27:22

I want my way and she wants her way. Right?

27:29

Q: It may be because you have your own ideas of what relationship is. K: Yes. So, my idea of relationship, that I must dominate her.

27:40

Q: The image. K: And she resents it.

27:47

So there is a problem. Right?

27:52

Why do I want to dominate her?

27:58

Follow all this carefully. One country wants to dominate other countries.

28:04

One group wants to dominate other groups. So why do I want to dominate her?

28:11

Q: Isn’t it because we are insecure inside? K: So, is that so? I am insecure

28:18

and in the feeling that I am dominating somebody I feel secure.

28:23

Is that it? Think it out. Go into it.

28:32

Q: Maybe a part of it is the old way of thinking,

28:39

that the man is the dominant of the partners,

28:45

the male has the most say, etc., with business and such.

28:51

K: Look, sir, I don’t get on. Is it that I am ambitious? I want to succeed.

28:56

She says, Please, I am not ambitious, I am rather a gentle person, don’t be aggressive. So there is a conflict. Right?

29:09

Are you following all this? And she is also ambitious, she wants to become somebody

29:18

and I also want to become something totally different, so there is conflict between us. Right?

29:25

So we don’t get on. I want to become a monk, she doesn’t.

29:36

I want to live a very peaceful life, not turn on the radio all the time, or the television,

29:42

and she wants it. So we are at it all day long. You follow?

29:50

So, why? Each of us wants something. Each of us want to be a success,

29:57

to have a marvellous life – you follow? – and so on, so on, so on.

30:02

Right? Each one of us is self-centred.

30:09

You know what that means, don’t you, that word?

30:14

I want to fulfil through her and she wants to fulfil, either sexually

30:19

or different ways, through me. And I don’t. You follow?

30:26

Conflict. So what shall I do? You follow what relationship means now?

30:35

How can there be a relationship between two people who are diametrically thinking differently,

30:44

feeling different? I like beauty, or she likes beauty.

30:50

She is romantic, I am not. She is poetic, I am mundane.

30:57

You follow? So relationship is a very complex affair.

31:08

I may get on very well with my life… with my wife, but I may not get on very well with my neighbour, with my boss,

31:18

with the foreman in the factory.

31:26

So, is there a relationship – please listen to all this –

31:32

is there a relationship which is consistent,

31:40

in which there is no conflict,

31:50

in which there is no me and her – you follow? – me and they, we and they

32:02

– we the French, we the Germans, we the British, we the Indians – you follow?

32:11

Which means wherever there is separation there must be conflict.

--

Med venlig hilsen/best regards

Peter

Søndag 1. december kl. 10

Dialog

Søndag 24. november kl. 10

Kan du leve uden et eneste problem?

Vi ser videoen hver for sig inden dialogen.

Hilsen Henrik

Søndag 17. november kl. 10

Åben dialog

Krishnamurti om dialog fra Talk 10, Saanen, Schweiz, 1. august 1965

Om nogle få dage skal vi have en diskussion, og vi kan starte den diskussion her til morgen. Men hvis du hævder noget, og jeg hævder noget, hvis du holder fast i din mening, dit dogme, din erfaring, din viden, og jeg holder fast i min, så kan der ikke være nogen reel diskussion, fordi ingen af os er fri til at undersøge. At diskutere er ikke at dele vores erfaringer med hinanden. Der er ingen deling overhovedet. Der er kun skønheden i sandheden, som hverken du eller jeg kan besidde. Den er der simpelthen. For at diskutere intelligent må der ikke kun være en form for hengivenhed, men også en form for tøven. Medmindre du tøver, kan du ikke undersøge. At undersøge betyder at tøve, at finde ud af det selv, opdage ting skridt for skridt. Og når du gør det, behøver du ikke at følge nogen, du behøver ikke at bede om korrektioner eller om bekræftelse på din opdagelse. Men alt dette kræver en masse intelligens og følsomhed. Nu håber jeg ikke, at jeg har forhindret dig i at stille spørgsmål! Det her er at snakke om tingene som to venner. Vi er ikke påståelige og forsøger ikke at dominere hinanden, men taler afslappet, venligt, i en atmosfære af godt kammeratskab, mens vi forsøger at finde ud af noget. Og i den sindstilstand gør vi opdagelser, men jeg kan forsikre dig om, at det, vi opdager, har meget begrænset betydning. Det vigtige er at opdage, og efter at have opdaget, at fortsætte. Det er ikke godt at blive ved det, du har opdaget, for da er dit sind lukket, færdigt. Hvis du derimod dør fra det, du har opdaget, i det øjeblik du har opdaget det, så kan du flyde som en strøm, som en flod, der har masser af vand.

Søndag 10. november kl. 10

Al tid er indeholdt i nuet!

"If this is very clear, the absolute clarity of it, that the psyche has no future - you understand - that you have no future. That is because what you are now you will be, unless fundamental mutation - which is a biological word but a good word to use - unless there is fundamental mutation now, you will be what you are tomorrow."

Erfaringsvis er det svært at forstå Krishnamurtis idé om, at al tid er indeholdt i nuet - selv på et logisk plan. På søndag vil jeg indlede med nogle meget konkrete eksempler, der gerne skulle gøre det lidt nemmere.

Her er en Krishnamurti tekst:

"The now contains all time because what you are now you will be tomorrow - right? So, tomorrow is now. Have you understood? I am prejudiced now, I like and dislike people, and tomorrow I will be prejudiced, I still will like and dislike - right? So tomorrow, the future is now. Is this clear? Have we understood each other? Please, this is very important to understand this. Not the speaker is putting an extraordinary,some kind of exotic, oriental nonsense. When the Orientals bring something, it will be nonsense but if you can see this point for yourself, that all time, the past, the present and the future is contained now - right? I am what I have been, and what I will be is what I am now. If I don't change now, I will be tomorrow exactly what I am - clear? Are we together in this? - not verbally, not theoretically but actually - that we now contain all time, apart from learning a language, learning a skill - you understand - writing a letter, that requires time, to come from one place to another, that requires time, but psychologically, inwardly, all time is now. Right? See the difficulty of it, that there is no tomorrow, there is only now. That means there is no becoming - right? There is no psychological evolution at all. Now this is... you understand? It is not 'I am going to achieve something' - that means time. Do you understand? Suppose I want to be illuminated - whatever that may mean, quotes! I want to find truth, all the rest of it. That means in the future - right? Clear? The future is now, what I am - right? If I don't fundamentally change the future is what I am tomorrow - right? What I am now tomorrow - clear?

Then from there we can go on to something very complex. If we see the truth of this, that there is no psychological evolution at all. There is no becoming, there is no what I am but what I will be. The future is now - if I don't radically change now, I will be exactly tomorrow what I am. Right? That means seeing the truth that there is no psychological becoming. The psyche, which is the essence of the self, thinks in terms of becoming - right? Do you follow all this? This is not an intellectual feat. This is a simple, obvious fact. Christianity has one way of expressing it - resurrection, reaching God, attaining Heaven, which is expressed in the Asiatic world differently but it is the same movement - right? That is, I am this, I will gradually become that. That is, never to think in terms of graduality - gradualness. You understand all this? I need time gradually to learn a skill - right? I need many years to learn to dance well in a ballet, from childhood I must begin. To play the violin I must begin when I am very young, if I have got the talent, if I have got the passion behind it. And also, I feel the same movement is carried over into the psychological area, I must one day reach. Right? That is why you belong to various groups, various gurus, you put on various dresses, robes to be different, because you want to achieve something. So, if you see the truth, the absolute truth that all time is contained in the now, to realise the depth of it is rather frightening. When you say, 'I hope to see you tomorrow', 'I love you tomorrow' - you understand? So, either that love is now in its entirety or not at all.

If this is very clear, the absolute clarity of it, that the psyche has no future - you understand - that you have no future. That is because what you are now you will be, unless fundamental mutation - which is a biological word but a good word to use - unless there is fundamental mutation now, you will be what you are tomorrow.

So, realising that as an actuality, not a theory, not a supposition, not some ideal, all that nonsense, but fact, then we must begin to enquire into what is action? Into what is relationship? Into what is change? Right? Change, action and relationship - right? If I understand, if that truth that all time is now, then what is my action, what is then action? Please enquire, don't go to sleep. Sorry. Forgive me. If the speaker is emphatic please it is not that he is aggressive. The speaker feels very strongly about these matters. Humanity is destroying itself - right? All over the world terrible things are happening. They are preparing all kinds of horrors, the scientists throughout the world. Gas warfare, germ warfare, these terrible missiles, atom bombs, neutron bombs. We were at one of the centres where they are preparing all these, top scientists. We casually go on every day of our life not paying any attention to all that. When you are aware of all the things happening in the world, which is you, round you, you feel utterly responsible, not for yourself, for this whole humanity, not just for Switzerland. I know this means nothing to most of us because we just want to go on with our old traditions, our old habits, our old defensive mechanisms and so on. So, when we realise all time is now, what a marvellous truth, then what is action? What is our present action? We must begin with the actual to find out what real action is, which has no future. You understand what I am saying?

…What the speaker wants to explain is that the past is so formidable, so strong that it guides, controls, shapes our action - right? Or you have a future ideal, future theories, and act according to those theories as approximatingly as possible - right? Past memories and the future theories, ideals, concepts, dogmas, faith. So action is based on these two principles - right? Clear? Of course, this is simple. But when one realises all action is now, there is no future action - you understand? Because the future is now. I must go over it. If that is not clear that all time is now, contained in the now - right? You agreed two minutes ago, at least you shook your heads, some of you, indicating that you were following, you saw the fact of it. Now if there is no future, because the future is now and the past is now, then what is action? We said action as we know it now is based on the past - memories, regrets, guilt, experience, which is all knowledge, or the future, the ideal, the concepts - right? Theories, faiths, you act according to that. So, you are acting according to the past or to the future. But the past and the future are now - right? So, what is action? You understand my question? Please do - don't give up. You have to exercise your brain, your intellect, your energy to find out, your passion to find out. What is action? If - no, what is action then all time is now? What is your answer? What is your deep truthful answer? When the brain - listen to it - when the brain is conditioned to act according to the past, or to the future, and when the truth is all time is now, therefore there is no future, but now. The future is contained in the now, and the past is contained in the now. You understand all this? So what is action?

I can tell you but you see you are waiting for me to tell you. Too bad, you are not really going into it. You are waiting for somebody to explain all this. Suppose there was nobody to explain to you, what will you do? You have seen the truth of something - the truth that all time, the past, the future, is in the now. You see. And you meet a man who says, 'Look, what is action?', and leaves you. And you have to find out because when once you have seen the truth that all time is now, that truth will never leave you. You understand? It is like a thorn, like an arrow in your body that will not be extracted, pulled out. So you have to answer it. And you won't answer it because you are incapable of answering it, because our brain is conditioned to the past action, action according to the past, or according to the future. So one has to tackle that problem first: whether the brain can be free from the past. Careful now. I need memory to function in the world - right? To go to my office, to work in the laboratory or in a factory, or some skill, I need a great deal of time, a great deal of knowledge. There, there is a becoming there - right? I don't know but I will know. That same movement, same - it is extended, that same thought is extended into the psychological world. I am this, I will be that - right? Now you perhaps have seen for yourself very clearly the truth that all time is now. And the speaker says, find out what is action. Right? Your action has been according to the past memories, past training, past experience, which has conditioned the brain, and also conditioned the brain to the future idea, ideal, concept, I must be, and so on. Can the brain be free of these two? You understand? Are you following all this? You understand my question sirs? (Yes).

Can the brain, which has been conditioned to act according to past memories, or thought has projected a concept, an ideal, a theory, according to which you are acting. The brain is conditioned that way. Can the brain be free of that, otherwise you will never find out what action now is - you understand? I can - somebody can explain but it won't be the depth of your own understanding. Clear? I'll explain it. I'll go into it. This will be a verbal explanation, naturally. It won't be something you yourself have discovered, and therefore truth and therefore live according to it.

We have to enquire into what is perception, seeing, perceiving. One perceives the fact actually that all time is now. That is a fact. Irrevocable fact. No other clever man comes along and says, 'It is not like that.' If what you have discovered is truth then you can meet any challenge. You won't be bowled over."

Public Talk 1 Saanen, Switzerland - 08 July 1984

Søndag 3. november kl. 10

Tankens rette plads

Ingmar Bergman, Interview New York Times, May 8, 1981:

Intuition, says Ingmar Bergman, is the essence of creativity and the foundation of his unparalleled success as a film maker.

"I make all my decisions on intuition," said the 62-year-old Swedish director.

"But then, I must know why I made that decision. I throw a spear into the darkness. That is intuition. Then I must send an army into the darkness to find the spear. That is intellect.”

Jiddu Krishnamurti & David Bohm, Second conversation at Brockwood Park 24 May 1975:

1:31:48

K: Aha. Let’s get this clear.

Sir, look – to see and act.

Seeing is acting. In that, there is no space as division.

DB: Yes.

K: I think that’s clear.

Therefore, that space is the freedom of nothingness. We said that.

DB: Yes, well, nothingness is the same as freedom because as soon as a thing is a thing, it’s not free. K: Yes, that’s right. All that, we say that.

DB: Yes.

K: Therefore, truth is nothingness – not a thing. Right.

The action of nothingness, which is intelligence, in the field of reality,

that intelligence, being free, and all the rest of it, operates in reality without distortion.

1:56:41

DB: There’s just one point that occurred to me.

You see, it seems that something that comes close to the essence of this distortion is – the whole field of the reality –

is the tendency to take that field as that which is, you see.

K: Sir, if I – just a minute, I’ve just thought –

if the mind discards and puts away all distortion, what is the necessity of thought, except as a function?

DB: Well, as a rational function.

K: Function – that’s all.

DB: Yes. Yes. Well, I think that, you see, many people might feel that thought ought to be a rational function, you know, but they can’t make it so.

K: No. No.

If thought is left – what shall I say?

If thought – wait a minute; just a minute, sir.

If there is no – I’m asking – if there is no controller of thought – just a minute – then it’ll create all kinds of distortions.

DB: No, not if truth is operating.

K: That’s it.

1:58:59

K: Would you say thought in itself is divisive – understood – is in itself distorting, it is creating distortions?

DB: Well, as a matter of fact it is, or are you trying to say it necessarily does so? You see, there are two possibilities:

one is to say thought without the truth necessarily distorts, or the other is to say no matter what happens thought is distorting.

I don’t think we want to say that thought...

K: No, no, no.

DB: The other one – right?

K: The other one.

DB: So we say thought without truth is a divisive process.

K: That’s right, sir. Thought without the capacity, without that quality of seeing, is a distorting factor.

Mvh Peter

Søndag 27. oktober kl. 10

Direkte perception og erkendelse

Vi dykker igen ned i Michaels oplæg fra sidste søndag.

Nedenstående videoer er en del af oplægget, og nedenunder dem ses oplægget som billeder. Billederne er ikke i oprindelig rækkefølge, håber det går.

Venligst Henrik

Søndag 13. oktober kl. 10

Why do you tolerate suffering?

Præsentationer

Som man kan se her på siden er inspirationen eller udgangspunktet for vores samtaler som oftest en tekst eller video af Krishnamurti. Ind imellem er der dog en længere præsentation fra en af deltagerne. Nogle eksempler ser du her:

OBSERVING WITHOUT JUDGEMENT

THE SOURCE AND STRUCTURE OF MEMORY  AND THOUGHT

Søndag 6. oktober kl. 10

People on Peace

Personlige noter eller fremhævelser

Nedenstående er skrevet i oktober måned efter en gennemlytning af samtalen, og er som sagt hvad jeg hæfter mig ved.

Henrik

På Shakespeares tid betød udtrykket Peace Peace, vær stille. Hermed er opfordringen givet videre.

Fred forstås almindeligvis som modsætningen til krig, som perioden mellem 2 krige. For Krishnamurti er det mere og dybere end det - det er noget fuldstændigt, noget intet kan forstyrre. en fuldkommen harmoni.

I Egypten og Indien har der været lange fredelige og tilsyneladende harmoniske perioder.

Fred som ide, ideal eller virkelighed.

Er konflikt uundgåelig, og udvikler vi os af dem? Krishnamurti siger Nej.

Konfliktens ophør er både nødvendig og mulig, siger han. først og fremmest handler det om at den indre, den personlige konflikt ophører.

Vil den måde vi nu tænker, føler og handler på uundgåeligt ende i krig?

hvor dybt ser vi ind i os selv?

Så længe tanken dominerer vores liv, vil der være konflikt. Krig er en blodig projektion af vores daglige liv.

Men er krig ikke gammeldags?

Dyb fred er noget helt andet end fravær af krig. Dyb fred i en selv.

Forbedring er relativt, det Krishnamurti taler om er absolut.

Alle opdelinger skaber konflikt. Tanken deler ting op, og er derfor bundet til at skabe konflikt. er den ikke?

Gud eller guder, tro, kirke og institutioner.

Krishnamurti siger konformitet er uorden, at orden er ikke at følge nogen eller noget, men stå alene. Men så er der jo truslerne, volden og frygten.

Der er mere og mere splittelse i verden.

Hvorfor skal vi have en mening om alting? Vi deler os efter anskuelse.

Hvem taler?

Kommer vores meninger fra vores identitet?

Hvem er du? Blot et menneske, ikke?

Vi har alle samme dna. Det er vores verden.

Men så er den der pludselig: jeg er ikke som ham eller hende. Vi er ikke som dem!

Overlegenhedsfølelser -og fortællinger.

Fred er grundlæggende og helt uden frygt.

Den eneste måde hvorpå vi kan få en fredelig verden, er ved at folk er fredelige.

Vores arbejde er at beskæftige os med det der står i vejen for fred.

En fredelig verden kræver fredelige mennesker. Det lyder simpelt men det er sandt.

Trangen til at dominere ligger dybt i os. Det kommer fra dyrene. Kan vi forstå og gå ud over det dyriske i os?

Magt.

Findes der noget vi kunne kalde fredsenergi?

Hvad er fred eller venskab egentlig?

Hvordan hænger magt og fred sammen? Er de uforenelige?

Er fred kedeligt? Hvad får vi ud af det?

Eller hænger fred og kreativitet sammen?

Er det meste kunst rundet af konflikt? En god kunster går dybt ind i og igennem konflikten.

Krishnamurti siger vist, at kreativitet ikke behøver et udtryk, et værk. Du er selv kunstværket, ikke?

Søger vi en midlertidig forløsning eller et totalt ophør af konflikt?

Kunsten går ikke dybt nok.

Vi er i en meget alvorlig situation; vi er nødt til at arbejde sammen, og se dæmonerne i øjnene.

"I am an disaster" - ja, men vi er nødt til at grine af det.

Er det Krishnamurti siger et løfte, en utopi, en fantasi? Nej, han levede det han sagde.

Han var uden konflikt, uden ego. Han benægtede aldrig at han var verdenslæreren.

Det handler om en radikal revolution indeni. Det er det der er vores udfordring.

Frøet skal spire. Resultater er ikke alt. Vi er i begyndelsen af noget.

I erkendelsen af sandheden er der fred, og fred er ikke statisk.

Dette er interviewet overstående er plukket fra.

Søndag 29. september kl. 10

Tid er fortid, nutid og fremtid

Søndag 22. september kl. 10

I do not mind what happens

Hei alle sammen

Vet ikke om det er planlagt noe tema for kommende søndag 22. september?

I øyeblikket prøver jeg å utforske hva K mente med sitt sentrale «mantra» : "I do not mind what happens»

Har så langt ikke funnet noen referanser, hvor han konkretiserer og utdyper praktiseringen av dette i hverdagen.

Det opplagte kan være; ingen tilknytninger eller forventninger til resultatet av ens handlinger - det som skjer det skjer.

På den annen side vil noen kunne tolke dette som passivitet og likegyldighet til det som skjer i verden.

I noen sammenhenger  (se lenken under) blir det omformulert til «I do not care - what happens» som jo på engelsk betyr noe ganske annet! 

<maxresdefault.jpg>

When Jiddu Krishnamurti Shocked His Audience (The Philosophy Of Not Caring)

youtube.com

Eckart Tolle gir sin tolkning av K sitt utsagn:

Not Minding What Happens, by Eckhart Tolle

awakin.org

<favicon.ico>

Efter nogen søgen fandt jeg en tale hvor Krishnamurti siger "I don't mind what happens" det er omkring 40 min. inde i talen som man kan se her ovenfor. Nedenunder er der et link til teksten.

VH. Henrik

Public Talk 2 Ojai, California, USA - 03 April 1977

Søndag 8. september kl. 10

Hvad er selvet, og hvordan kan det forstås?

Som oplæg til forsættelse of sidste søndags dialog er her nogle input til næste søndag´s dialog om `selvet, hvad det er, og hvordan det kan observeres/forstås. Forskellen på at se noget, inklusiv selvet, som en tanke i modsætning til en ´direkte´ forståelse hvor der ingen observatør er. Alle tre videoer er rimelig korte.

When you are confronting a fact, every thought is a form of resistance. Why should you have a thought? Can you not look at something without thought? Can you look at a flower, a tree, a woman, a man, a child, an animal without thought? That is, can you look at a flower non-biologically, non-botanically? When you look at a flower with the knowledge you have concerning the flower – what kind of flower it is, the colour, the perfume, the beauty – all that interferes from looking at the flower. Which is, the thought process prevents you from looking. Just understand this, not say, ‘How am I to get to that stage when can I look without the word, without thought?’ There is no system, no path. But if you understand that you do not see anything clearly, definitely, sanely if thought interferes, then you stop thinking and look.

From Public Talk 8, New Delhi, 14 February 1962

There is a difference between the brain and the mind. The brain is separative, functional; it cannot see the whole and functions within a pattern. The mind is the totality which can see the whole. The brain is contained within the mind, but the brain does not contain the mind. However much thought may purify itself, refine itself, control itself, it cannot possibly conceive or formulate or understand what is the total. It is the capacity of the mind that sees the whole, not the brain.

From Public Talk 9, Paris, 24 September 1961

Suffering expresses itself as the activity of resisting what is present and seeking what is not present. The separate self is made of that activity.

— Rupert Spira

Søndag 1. september kl. 10

Åben dialog

Søndag 25. august kl. 10

Indsigt

Saanen, 4th Question & Answer Meeting - 26th July 1980 - ‘Insight’

Question:Insightis a word now used to describe anything newly seen, or any change of perspective. Thisinsightwe all know. But theinsightyou speak of seems a very different one. What is the nature of theinsightof which you speak?

Krishnamurti: If you have understood withinsight, your whole daily life will be affected. The first part of the question refers to the sort of experiments carried out on monkeys. Hang up a bunch of bananas and a monkey takes a stick and beats it and the bananas drop; the monkey is said to haveinsight. There is the other monkey who piles furniture together, one piece on top of another; by that means he reaches the bananas. That is also calledinsight. There are also experiments with rats; they have to do all kinds of tricks, press this button or that button in order to get at food. That is also calledinsight. Through experiment, through trial and error, through constantly trying this button and the other button the right button is ultimately pressed and the door of the trap is opened. This process of so-calledinsightis essentially based on knowledge and that is what we are all doing. You may not call itinsight, but it is the actual process of our activity. Try this; if it does not suit, try that. Medically, physically, sexually and so-called spiritually we are doing this all the time. Trying, experimenting and achieving, which becomes acquired knowledge, and from that knowledge we act. This is calledinsight.

We are referring to aninsightwhich is something entirely different. When the monkey pushes that button and achieves a result, his brain has recorded, memorized, that button as giving that result; it becomes automatic. Then the experimenter changes the button. The monkey presses the original button but it does not work so he gets disturbed. This is what happens to you. Through experiment, through trial, you find a way of living, which suits you. That then is calledinsight. Thatinsightis based on the repetition of knowledge. Knowledge is acquired or discarded. Thatinsightis always based on knowledge, and knowledge is the past. There is no knowledge of the now or of the future.

The brain is accustomed to one button, to one pattern; it will not accept basic change, it does not know where it is, like the monkey; if the buttons are constantly changed it gives up; it will not move; it is paralysed and does not know what to do. You can see all this in your own self; not knowing what to do, you rush off asking somebody what buttons to press.

We are talking about something very serious. This constant change, happening throughout the world, brings about a sense of paralytic inaction. One cannot do anything. One can go into a monastery, but that is too immature, too childish when you are facing something tremendous. So, unless there is a change in the brain cells themselves, the mere pressing of buttons is the same process repeated. Unless the brain – which is composed of a million, a trillion, or whatever number of cells – undergoes a radical change it will be repeating the old pattern, modifying itself, uncertain, insecure, in a paralysing state of inaction, and, being paralysed it will go off to ask somebody else for help. This is what we are doing.

Can those brain cells change – not by being operated upon, not by being given new drugs, not as a result of entering into new modes of scientific investigation? If not we will keep on endlessly repeating this pattern of certainty, uncertainty, certainty, uncertainty.

I say they can be changed. This movement from certainty to uncertainty and vice versa, is a pattern of time. The brain is used to that – that is why there are all these questions about enlightenment, systems and so on. The speaker says they can be changed, rationally, not in some illusory, fanciful, romantic manner. The brain, the mind and so the nerves, the whole, can observe itself. Which means no direction, no motive. When there is no motive or direction, the movement has already changed. The brain is accustomed to function with motives and when there is no motive in observation one has changed the whole momentum of the past. When there is no motive, no direction, the mind becomes absolutely quiet. There is inward observation and that observation isinsight. Therefore the pattern to which the brain cells have been accustomed has been broken.

We are brought up on ideals – the greater, the nobler, the better. The ideal has become more important than ‘what is’. ‘What is’ and the ideal are opposed and must breed conflict. Look what you are doing: the ideal is the creation of thought in order to overcome ‘what is’, or to use the future as a lever to change ‘what is’. You are using non-fact to deal with fact. Therefore there is no result; that way there can never be change. It is so simple once you see it. Discard the ideal because it is valueless and observe only the fact. The discarding of the ideal has changed the pattern of the brain cells; the brain has lived in that pattern and now the pattern is broken. One has lived in the hope that one will gradually change; then one sees that gradualness is really the same thing repeated, modified, repeated, modified, repeated – therefore there is no basic change. When you see that, the whole structure of the brain has changed: that isinsight.

Søndag 18. august kl. 10

Barrierer for selv-transcendens

Tekst:

Fear of Pain

From Krishnamurti’s Book THE FIRST AND LAST FREEDOM

https://kfoundation.org/krishnamurti-the-first-and-last-freedom-fear-of-pain/

WHAT IS FEAR? Fear can exist only in relation to something, not in isolation. How can I be afraid of death, how can I be afraid of something I do not know? I can be afraid only of what I know. When I say I am afraid of death, am I really afraid of the unknown, which is death, or am I afraid of losing what I have known? My fear is not of death but of losing my association with things belonging to me. My fear is always in relation to the known, not to the unknown. My inquiry now is how to be free from the fear of the known, which is the fear of losing my family, my reputation, my character, my bank account, my appetites and so on. You may say that fear arises from conscience; but your conscience is formed by your conditioning, so conscience is still the result of the known. What do I know? Knowledge is having ideas, having opinions about things, having a sense of continuity as in relation to the known, and no more. Ideas are memories, the result of experience, which is response to challenge. I am afraid of the known, which means I am afraid of losing people, things or ideas, I am afraid of discovering what I am, afraid of being at a loss, afraid of the pain which might come into being when I have lost or have not gained or have no more pleasure. There is fear of pain. Physical pain is a nervous response, but psychological pain arises when I hold on to things that give me satisfaction, for then I am afraid of anyone or anything that may take them away from me. The psychological accumulations prevent psychological pain as long as they are undisturbed; that is I am a bundle of accumulations, experiences, which prevent any serious form of disturbance – and I do not want to be disturbed. Therefore I am afraid of anyone who disturbs them. Thus my fear is of the known, I am afraid of the accumulations, physical or psychological, that I have gathered as a means of warding off pain or preventing sorrow. But sorrow is in the very process of accumulating to ward off psychological pain. Knowledge also helps to prevent pain. As medical knowledge helps to prevent physical pain, so beliefs help to prevent psychological pain, and that is why I am afraid of losing my beliefs, though I have no perfect knowledge or concrete proof of the reality of such beliefs. I may reject some of the traditional beliefs that have been foisted on me because my own experience gives me strength, confidence, understanding; but such beliefs and the knowledge which I have acquired are basically the same – a means of warding off pain. Fear exists so long as there is accumulation of the known, which creates the fear of losing. Therefore fear of the unknown is really fear of losing the accumulated known. Accumulation invariably means fear, which in turn means pain; and the moment I say, ‘I must not lose,’ there is fear. Though my intention in accumulating is to ward off pain, pain is inherent in the process of accumulation. The very things which I have create fear, which is pain. The seed of defence brings offence. I want physical security; thus I create a sovereign government, which necessitates armed forces, which means war, which destroys security. Wherever there is a desire for self-protection, there is fear. When I see the fallacy of demanding security I do not accumulate any more. If you say that you see it but you cannot help accumulating, it is because you do not really see that, inherently, in accumulation there is pain. Fear exists in the process of accumulation and belief in something is part of the accumulative process. My son dies, and I believe in reincarnation to prevent me psychologically from having more pain; but, in the very process of believing, there is doubt. Outwardly I accumulate things, and bring war; inwardly I accumulate beliefs, and bring pain. So long as I want to be secure, to have bank accounts, pleasures and so on, so long as I want to become something, physiologically or psychologically, there must be pain. The very things I am doing to ward off pain bring me fear, pain. Fear comes into being when I desire to be in a particular pattern. To live without fear means to live without a particular pattern. When I demand a particular way of living that in itself is a source of fear. My difficulty is my desire to live in a certain frame. Can I not break the frame? I can do so only when I see the truth: that the frame is causing fear and that this fear is strengthening the frame. If I say I must break the frame because I want to be free of fear, then I am merely following another pattern which will cause further fear. Any action on my part based on the desire to break the frame will only create another pattern, and therefore fear. How am I to break the frame without causing fear, that is without any conscious or unconscious action on my part with regard to it? This means that I must not act, I must make no movement to break the frame. What happens to me when I am simply looking at the frame without doing anything about it? I see that the mind itself is the frame, the pattern; it lives in the habitual pattern which it has created for itself. Therefore, the mind itself is fear. Whatever the mind does goes towards strengthening an old pattern or furthering a new one. This means that whatever the mind does to get rid of fear causes fear. Fear finds various escapes. The common variety is identification, is it not? – identification with the country, with the society, with an idea. Haven’t you noticed how you respond when you see a procession, a military procession or a religious procession, or when the country is in danger of being invaded? You then identify yourself with the country, with a being, with an ideology. There are other times when you identify yourself with your child, with your wife, with a particular form of action, or inaction. Identification is a process of self-forgetfulness. So long as I am conscious of the ‘me’ I know there is pain, there is struggle, there is constant fear. But if I can identify myself with something greater, with something worthwhile, with beauty, with life, with truth, with belief, with knowledge, at least temporarily, there is an escape from the ‘me’, is there not? If I talk about ‘my country’ I forget myself temporarily, do I not? If I can say something about God, I forget myself? If I can identify myself with my family, with a group, with a particular party, with a certain ideology, then there is a temporary escape. Identification therefore is a form of escape from the self, even as virtue is a form of escape from the self. The man who pursues virtue is escaping from the self and he has a narrow mind. That is not a virtuous mind, for virtue is something which cannot be pursued. The more you try to become virtuous, the more strength you give to the self, to the ‘me’. Fear, which is common to most of us in different forms, must always find a substitute and must therefore increase our struggle. The more you are identified with a substitute, the greater the strength to hold on to that for which you are prepared to struggle, to die, because fear is at the back. Do we now know what fear is? Is it not the non-acceptance of what is? We must understand the word ‘acceptance’. I am not using that word as meaning the effort made to accept. There is no question of accepting when I perceive what is. When I do not see clearly what is, then I bring in the process of acceptance. Therefore fear is the non-acceptance of what is. How can I, who am a bundle of all these reactions, responses, memories, hopes, depressions, frustrations, who am the result of the movement of consciousness blocked, go beyond? Can the mind, without this blocking and hindrance, be conscious? We know, when there is no hindrance, what extraordinary joy there is. Don’t you know when the body is perfectly healthy there is a certain joy, well-being; and don’t you know when the mind is completely free, without any block, when the centre of recognition as the ‘me’ is not there, you experience a certain joy? Haven’t you experienced this state when the self is absent? Surely we all have. There is understanding and freedom from the self only when I can look at it completely and integrally as a whole; and I can do that only when I understand the whole process of all activity born of desire which is the very expression of thought – for thought is not different from desire – without justifying it, without condemning it, without suppressing it; if I can understand that, then I shall know if there is the possibility of going beyond the restrictions of the self.

--
Med venlig hilsen/best regards

Peter

Søndag 11. august kl. 10

War & Peace | Mark Habeeb

Klik her for at høre podcasten, som er dagens oplæg.

Welcome back toThe Immeasurable Podcast. This episode comes from a talk titled “War and Peace” at the 2022 KFA May Gathering. Despite the persistent aspiration of every generation to achieve world peace and end war, violence, and terror, these conflicts continue unabated. Most people envision a peaceful world for their children, yet the cycle of violence and ethnic hatred persists.

In this talk, Mark Habeeb raises the question of whether we should abandon this seemingly unattainable goal or go deeper into understanding why we perpetuate the very actions we wish to cease. We may be challenged to have the courage to look within ourselves and recognize that the roots of war and violence lie in our own interactions and relationships.

Mark Habeeb is a Professor of Global Politics and Security at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service in Washington, DC, where his specialty is international negotiation, conflict management, and the role of identity processes in group violence. He is a Fellow of the Middle East Studies Association, a member of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, and a member of the Board of Virginia Humanities. From 1988 to 1991 he was Chairman of the Forum for US-Soviet Dialogue. He has published widely in his field and in 2021 published his first novel. Mark received his PhD from Johns Hopkins University and also studied at the University of Sussex and the Washington Psychoanalytic Institute. He has studied the teachings of Krishnamurti for over 30 years.

For de som bare må have Krishnamurti himself på banen.

Vh. Henrik

Søndag 4. august kl. 10

Kan vi tænke uden at skabe billeder?  

Ovenstående spørgsmål er relevant i det omfang vi ser, at de billeder vi har af os selv, hinanden og verden i det hele taget fremkalder problemer. Så, kan vi se på hvordan billederne opstår, hvorfor de dannes og hvad konsekvensen er. Her er lidt forskellig inspiration fra Krishnamurti. Måske jeg kommer med et kort oplæg.

Kh. Henrik

Selvbilledet fører til smerte

Hvorfor bliver du såret? Det er selvhøjtidelighed, er det ikke? Hvorfor tager man sig selv så højtideligt?

Det er fordi man har en idé, et selvbillede, et billede af hvad man burde være, hvad man er eller hvad man ikke skal være. Hvorfor skaber man et billede af sig selv? ... Det der vækker vrede er, at vores ideal, den idé vi har om os selv, bliver angrebet. Og vores idé om os selv er vores flugt fra hvad vi i virkeligheden er. Men når du observerer det du rent faktisk er, kan ingen såre dig. Så, hvis man er en løgner og får at vide man er en løgner, så betyder det ikke man bliver såret, det er en kendsgerning.

What are You Doing with Your Life

  Man er nødt til at gå ind i og finde ud af hvordan billedet bliver til, og om det er muligt at stoppe hele det maskineri som skaber billedet…

Det er meget enkelt. Du roser mig, du respekterer mig; og det er gennem de fornærmelser og den ros du giver mig at jeg danner et billede af dig. Jeg har erfaringer – smerte, død, elendighed, konflikt, sult, ensomhed. Alt dette fabrikerer et billede i mig, jeg er det billede. Ikke at jeg er det billede, ikke at jeg og billedet er forskellige, men - Jeget er billedet. Tænkeren er billedet. Det er tænkeren som fabrikerer billedet...

Maskineriet er tænkning, maskinen bliver til gennem tanken. Og tanken er nødvendig, du kan slet ikke eksisterer uden tanken. Se problemet først. Tanken skaber tænkeren. Tænkeren begynder at skabe billedet af ham selv… Han fabrikerer det og lever i det. Hele maskineriet begynder med tænkning. Så siger du, ”hvordan stopper jeg tænkningen?” Det kan du ikke. Men man kan tænke uden at fabrikere billeder.

What are You Doing with Your Life

To look at another without an image is a blessing | J. Krishnamurti

Søndag 28. juli kl. 10

Brain & Mind  

Kære venner - som aftalt er her noget materiale om Brain and Mind, inklusiv den meget relevante video med Bohm som Peter har foreslået.

Varme hilsner, Michael.

There is a difference between the brain and the mind. The brain is separative, functional; it cannot see the whole and functions within a pattern. The mind is the totality which can see the whole. The brain is contained within the mind, but the brain does not contain the mind. However much thought may purify itself, refine itself, control itself, it cannot possibly conceive or formulate or understand what is the total. It is the capacity of the mind that sees the whole, not the brain.

From Public Talk 9, Paris, 24 September 1961

Søndag 21. juli kl. 10

fragmentation

Jeg lovede at finde et emne. Fremmedgørelse er interessant, men da det ikke er et ord, Krishnamurti bruger, så er jeg ikke i første omgang gået videre med det.
Et ord han til gengæld ofte bruger er 'fragmentation'. Det kan nogle gange være svært at få styr på den dybere betydning. Jeg har fundet noglecitater, som vi kan undersøge.

Hilsen Rasmus

Public Talk 4 in Bombay (Mumbai), 27 January 1974:
Disorder means fragmentation of life, a contradiction - saying one thing, doing another, having ideals and never living that reality. Ideals are an abstraction without a reality, so you live a disordered, confused, contradictory life.

Public Talk 3 in Bombay (Mumbai), 26 January 1974:
Thought is the very essence of fragmentation. Thought is from the outside. It can turn inward, but it is still outside. Thought is the response of memory, knowledge and experience. Therefore, it is the past. Relationship is a constant movement in the present. When the image is made, you are living in the past and therefore you are betraying the present relationship. So can the mind observe your wife or husband, your boss or neighbour without a single image? Can you observe yourself having an image about another?

From Public Discussion 5, Saanen, 7 August 1966:
Thought must always bring about a fragmentation of the total. If I want to see the totality of that mountain – the totality, not just its lines and what name it has and so on; to see the totality of that marvellous thing called the mountain – if I begin to think about it, thought gives it a fragmentary significance. So, I see wherever thought functions with regard to pleasure, or with regard to anything, it must be fragmentary. So I say to myself, ‘Is there a total pleasure?’ Pleasure must be total, otherwise it is fragmentary and breeds conflict. So, is pleasure a fragmentary affair of thought, or is there a pleasure which is so total there is no fragmentation, and therefore no contradiction, and therefore no conflict?

From Small Group Discussion 6 in Bombay (Mumbai), 24 January 1973:
As long as there is a centre, there must be fragmentation as the ‘me’ and the ‘you’ and conflict in that relationship.

From Dialogue 2 with Radha Burnier in Schönried, 13 August 1984:
The activity of thought must inevitably bring fragmentation. One realises this, and therefore one says there must be integration, which is yet another form of fragmentation.

From Dialogue 2 with Radha Burnier in Schönried, 13 August 1984:
The movement of thought in any direction is a movement towards breaking up and fragmentation.

From Public Talk 1, Saanen, 17 July 1969:
All fragmentations are contained in one fragment, which is the observer, the examiner.

K School Discussion 9 in Brockwood Park, 23 October 1969:
Fragmentation implies contradiction, conflict and misery. One fragment taking charge of other fragments is still fragmentation. One fragment saying, ‘I am God,’ is still fragmentation. One fragment saying, ‘I am going to seek God,’ is still a fragmentation. All this I have been through, I have watched it, looked at it - I know this now, but I don’t know what to do. I really don’t know what to do. So, what does this mean? The mind negates or puts aside everything that man has proposed because they all deal with fragments. So, I have thrown away all the approaches to the solution, and I have no solution. I have exerted my capacity as a human being - thinking, feeling, observing - that there is fragmentation, and it cannot be put together. There is no such thing as integration. There is no such thing as an outside agency that is going to fuse them all. I cannot invent a higher entity. So, what happens to the mind when it has seen all this?

Søndag 14. juli kl. 10

Hvad er meditation?

En sammenligning af forskellige meditations forståelser

Tekster

MEDITATION Is to be aware of every thought and of every feeling, never to say it is right or wrong but just to watch it and move with it. In that watching you begin to understand the whole movement of thought and feeling.

And out of this awareness comes silence. Silence put together by thought is stagnation, is dead, but the silence that comes when thought has understood its own beginning, the nature of itself, understood how all thought is never free but always old this silence is meditation in which the meditator is entirely absent, for the mind has emptied itself of the past.

Freedom from the Known, p.115

MEDITATION Is to find out whether the brain, with all the activities, all its experiences, can be absolutely quiet. Not forced, because the moment you force, there is duality The entity that says, "I would like to have marvellous experiences, therefore I must force my brain to be quiet," will never do it. But if you begin to inquire, observe, listen to all the movements of thought, its conditioning, its pursuits, its fears, its pleasures, watch how the brain operates, then you will see that the brain becomes extraordinarily quiet; that quietness is not sleep but is tremendously active and therefore quiet. A big dynamo that is working perfectly hardly makes a sound; it is only when there is friction that there is noise.

The Impossible Question, p.72

WHAT AN EXTRAORDINARY thing meditation is.

If there is any kind of compulsion, effort to make thought conform, imitate, then it becomes a wearisome burden. The silence which is desired ceases to be illuminating. If it is the pursuit of visions and experiences, then it leads to illusions and self-hypnosis.

Only in the flowering of thought and so ending thought does meditation have significance. Thought can only flower in freedom, not in ever-widening patterns of knowledge.

Knowledge may give newer experiences of greater sensation but a mind that is seeking experiences of any kind is immature. Maturity is the freedom from all experience; it is no longer under any influence to be or not to be.

--

Med venlig hilsen/best regards

Peter

Søndag 30. juni kl. 10

Åben dialog

Søndag 16. juni kl. 10

Hvad er meditation?

What is meditation?

MEDITATION Is to be aware of every thought and of every feeling, never to say it is right or wrong but just to watch it and move with it. In that watching you begin to understand the whole movement of thought and feeling.

And out of this awareness comes silence. Silence put together by thought is stagnation, is dead, but the silence that comes when thought has understood its own beginning, the nature of itself, understood how all thought is never free but always old this silence is meditation in which the meditator is entirely absent, for the mind has emptied itself of the past.

Freedom from the Known, p.115

MEDITATION Is to find out whether the brain, with all the activities, all its experiences, can be absolutely quiet. Not forced, because the moment you force, there is duality The entity that says, "I would like to have marvellous experiences, therefore I must force my brain to be quiet," will never do it. But if you begin to inquire, observe, listen to all the movements of thought, its conditioning, its pursuits, its fears, its pleasures, watch how the brain operates, then you will see that the brain becomes extraordinarily quiet; that quietness is not sleep but is tremendously active and therefore quiet. A big dynamo that is working perfectly hardly makes a sound; it is only when there is friction that there is noise.

The Impossible Question, p.72

WHAT AN EXTRAORDINARY thing meditation is.

If there is any kind of compulsion, effort to make thought conform, imitate, then it becomes a wearisome burden. The silence which is desired ceases to be illuminating. If it is the pursuit of visions and experiences, then it leads to illusions and self-hypnosis.

Only in the flowering of thought and so ending thought does meditation have significance. Thought can only flower in freedom, not in ever-widening patterns of knowledge.

Knowledge may give newer experiences of greater sensation but a mind that is seeking experiences of any kind is immature. Maturity is the freedom from all experience; it is no longer under any influence to be or not to be.

Krishnamurti’s Notebook, p.213

--

Med venlig hilsen/best regards

Peter

Søndag 9. juni kl. 10

Ret handling - er Krishnamurtis lære praktisk?

Søndag 2. juni kl. 10

Psykologisk tid

Her er mitt innspill til søndagens dialog.

Hilsen Thomas

Søndag 26. maj kl. 10

Dialogen tager udgangspunkt i dette interview 

Søndag 19. maj kl. 10

Indser jeg at verden er mig?

Søndag 21. april kl. 10

Hvad vil det sige at være mig?

Åben dialog

Jeg havde den mest ekstraordinære oplevelse. Der var en mand, der reparerede vejen; den mand var mig selv; selve den sten, han knuste, var en del af mig; det spæde græsstrå var selve mit væsen, og træerne ved siden af manden var mig selv. Jeg kunne også føle og tænke som vejmanden, og jeg kunne mærke vinden passere gennem træet, og den lille myre på græsstrået kunne jeg mærke. Fuglene, støvet og selve støjen var en del af mig. Netop da kom der en bil forbi; jeg var føreren, motoren og dækkene; idet bilen kørte videre og væk fra mig, kørte jeg væk fra mig selv. Jeg var i alt, eller rettere alt var i mig, det livløse og det levende, bjerget, ormen og alt det der ånder. Hele dagen forblev jeg i denne lykkelige tilstand.

Krishnamurti I et brev til Mrs Besant and Leadbeater efter hvad der senere er blevet omtalt som the pepper tree experience. 1922

Nordic Retreat: The Awakening of Intelligence

At the Krishnamurti Centre, Brockwood Park England

From Thursday 2th May to Monday 6th May 2024

Schedule

Thursday 2th May

Afternoon     Arrival

5:00 PM       Introduction meeting

7:00 PM        Supper    

Friday 3th May

8:00 AM        Breakfast

9:30 AM         Video: “Can the conditioned mind free itself”

(650) J. Krishnamurti - Ojai 1979 - Public Discussion 1 - Can a conditioned mind free itself? - YouTube

11:00 AM      Break

11:30 AM      Dialogue 1

1:00 PM        Lunch

5:00 PM        Video ”Is there another instrument of inquiry than thought?”

https://youtu.be/C7oyEh-Vzho?si=o68hwtW66jmha9da

Dialogue 2

7:00 PM       Supper

Saturday 4th May

8:00 AM         Breakfast

9:30 AM         Video: J.Krishnamurti- Brockwood Park 1978 - Seminar 7 -

     What is it that flowers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZG8l4l4XKc

11:00 AM       Break

11:30 AM       Dialogue 3

1:00 PM         Lunch

5:00 PM         TED Talks: Focus on the power and impact of AI.

                       https://www.ai-event.ted.com

7:00 PM         Supper

Sunday 5th May 

8:00 AM         Breakfast

9:30 AM         Audio | J. Krishnamurti & David Bohm - Brockwood Park 1972 – Dialogue - On intelligence

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIcFiw_bjt8

11:00 AM       Break

11:30 AM       Dialogue 4

1:00 PM         Lunch

5:00 PM         Video: J. Krishnamurti - Beyond Myth & Tradition 4 - 

     The sacred

                       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8W0wvN_BoM

                      Dialogue 5

7:00 PM         Supper

Monday 6th May

8:00 AM       Breakfast

                     Departure

Prices £75 standard room/ £85 large room/ £100 (flat) per night, the7th night is free

Reservations  https://krishnamurticentre.innstyle.co.uk/ 

Information info@krishnamurti.fi 

krishnamurti.dk@gmail.com

--

Med venlig hilsen/best regards

Søndag 14. april kl. 10

Krishnamurti dialogen

Emne

Undersøgelse af den klassiske antagelse om virkeligheden som en dikotomi, en dualitet mellem en mental, psykisk, bevidsthedsmæssig realitet og en materiel, praktisk realitet, som kræver hver deres erkendelses metoder - set i lyset af Krishnamurtis maksime: “The observer is the observed”.

The observer and the observed

WHEN I BUILD an image about you or about anything, I am able to watch that image, so there is the image and the observer of the image ...

... But the observer is aware of more than one image; he creates thousands of images. But is the observer different from these images? Isn't he just another image?

.. One image, as the observer, observes dozens of other images around himself and inside himself, and he says, 'I like this image, I'm going to keep it' or 'I don't like that image so l'lI get rid of it', but the observer himself has been put together by the various images which have come into being through reaction to various other images. So we come to a point where we can say,

'The observer is also the image, only he has separated himself and observes.

.. Awareness of all this, which is real meditation, has revealed that there is a central image put together by all the other images, and the central image, the observer, is the censor, the experiencer, the evaluator, the judge who wants to conquer or subjugate the other images or destroy them altogether. The other images are the result of judgements, opinions and conclusions by the observer, and the observer is the result of all the other images - therefore the observer is the observed.

Freedom from the Known

Selfishness Is the Essential Problem in Life

From Krishnamurti’s Book THE WHOLE MOVEMENT OF LIFE IS LEARNING

MOST HUMAN BEINGS are selfish. They are not conscious of their own selfishness; it is the way of their life. And if one is aware that one is selfish, one hides it very carefully and conforms to the pattern of society which is essentially selfish. The selfish mind is very cunning. Either it is brutally and openly selfish or it takes many forms. If you are a politician the selfishness seeks power, status and popularity; it identifies itself with an idea, a mission and all for the public good. If you are a tyrant it expresses itself in brutal domination. If you are inclined to be religious it takes the form of adoration, devotion, adherence to some belief, some dogma. It also expresses itself in the family; the father pursues his own selfishness in all the ways of his life and so does the mother. Fame, prosperity, good looks form a basis for this hidden creeping movement of the self. It is in the hierarchical structure of the priesthood, however much they may proclaim their love of God, their adherence to the self-created image of their particular deity. The captains of industry and the poor clerk have this expanding and benumbing sensuality of the self. The monk who has renounced the ways of the world may wander the face of the world or may be locked away in some monastery but has not left this unending movement of the self. They may change their names, put on robes or take vows of celibacy or silence, but they burn with some ideal, with some image, some symbol.

It is the same with the scientists, with the philosophers and the professors in the university. The doer of good works, the saints and gurus, the man or the woman who works endlessly for the poor – they all attempt to lose themselves in their work but the work is part of it. They have transferred the egotism to their labours. It begins in childhood and continues to old age. The conceit of knowledge, the practised humility of the leader, the submitting wife and dominating man, all have this disease. The self identifies with the State, with endless groups, with endless ideas and causes but it remains what it was at the beginning.

Human beings have tried various practices, methods, meditations to be free of this centre which causes so much misery and confusion, but like a shadow it is never captured. It is always there and it slips through your fingers, through your mind. Sometimes it is strengthened or becomes weak according to circumstances. You corner it here, it turns up there.

One wonders if the educator, who is so responsible for a new generation, understands non-verbally what a mischievous thing the self is, how corrupting, distorting, how dangerous it is in our lives. He may not know how to be free of it, he may not even be aware it is there but once he sees the nature of the movement of the self can he or she convey its subtleties to the student? And is it not his responsibility to do this? The insight into the working of the self is greater than academic learning. Knowledge can be used by the self for its own expansion, its aggressiveness, its innate cruelty.

Selfishness is the essential problem of our life. Conforming and imitation are part of the self, as is competition and the ruthlessness of talent. If the educator in these schools takes this question to his heart seriously, which I hope he does, then how will he help the student to be selfless? You might say it is a gift of the strange gods or brush it aside as being impossible. But if you are serious, as one must be, and are totally responsible for the student, how will you set about freeing the mind from this ageless binding energy? – the self which has caused so much sorrow? Would you not, with great care – which implies affection – explain in simple words what the consequences are when he speaks in anger, or when he hits somebody, or when he is thinking of his own importance? Is it not possible to explain to him that when he insists ‘this is mine’ or boasts ‘I did it’ or avoids through fear a certain action, he is building a wall, brick by brick, around himself? Is it not possible when his desires, his sensations overpower his rational thinking, to point out that the shadow of self is growing? Is it not possible to say to him that where the self is, in any guise, there is no love?

But the student might ask the educator, ‘Have you realized all this or are you just playing with words’? That very question might awaken your own intelligence and that very intelligence will give you the right feeling and the right words as answer.

As an educator you have no status; you are a human being with all the problems of life like a student. The moment you speak from status you are actually destroying the human relation. Status implies power and when you are seeking this, consciously or unconsciously, you enter a world of cruelty. You have a great responsibility, my friend, and if you take this total responsibility which is love, then the roots of the self are gone. This is not said as an encouragement or to make you feel that you must do this, but as we are all human beings, representing the whole of mankind, we are totally and wholly responsible whether we choose to be or not. You may try to evade it but that very movement is the action of the self. Clarity of perception is freedom from the self.

https://kfoundation.org/krishnamurti-selfishness-is-the-essential-problem-in-life-from-the-whole-movement-of-life-is-learning/

--

Med venlig hilsen/best regards

Peter

Søndag 7. april kl. 10

The Observer

Kære venner - for dem der har tid er her en video til oplægget på søndag … emnet er “The Observer”. Michael.

klik her hvis du vil se hele oplægget til dialogen

The Observer

Søndag 31. marts kl. 10

Sensitivity and learning

Nedenstående tekst er skrevet af Bing - min Copilot som præsenterer sig som min daglige ledsager med kunstig intelligens

1. Krishnamurti’s perspective on learning is deeply connected to sensitivity and awareness. He believed that true learning is not merely the accumulation of knowledge through experience, which often leads to conditioning, but rather the ability to observe without the burden of the past1. This form of learning is about seeing things as they are, with a fresh perspective each time.

Krishnamurti emphasized the importance of understanding oneself and awakening one’s intelligence and sensitivity. He argued that education should aim to free individuals from fear, obedience, and authority, which are often products of conditioning2. By cultivating sensitivity, one can learn to love nature and humanity, leading to a world free from hatred, violence, and competition3.

He also highlighted the significance of being aware of one’s actions and thoughts, suggesting that while young, it’s crucial to develop the brain’s sensitivity and the capacity to think broadly4. Krishnamurti’s holistic approach to education is not just about academic learning but nurturing the whole human being for a harmonious and creative life5.

Søndag 24. marts kl. 10

Krishnamurti dialogen

Seminar om kommunikation

Disse seminarer kan forekomme ganske kaotiske, men ofte finder jeg dem alligevel inspirerende. Stødte på dette med overskriften "Communication" og da nogle af os havde berørt emnet så lad det hermed være et oplæg.

Venlig hilsen Henrik

Søndag 17. marts kl. 10

Krishnamurti dialogen

Mit forslag er, at vi taler om senilitet og om der en mulighed for fornyelse af hjernen.

Dels er der en kort video:

Nedenunder har jeg plukket nogle citater ud fra en gruppediskussion med bl.a. David Bohm.

Den er kaldt Senility and the Brain Cells  K School Discussion 1 Brockwood Park, England - 01 June 1980.
Hele diskussionen kan læses her (for de særligt interesserede):
Senility and the brain cells | J. Krishnamurti (jkrishnamurti.org)

"Can the brain be aware of its own movement? And the other question is: can the brain, not only be aware of its own movement, can the brain itself have enough energy to break all patterns and move out of it?"
"The brain is constantly in occupation: worries, problems, holding on, attachment and so on, so it is constantly in a state of occupation. That may be the central factor. And if it is not in occupation does it go sluggish? That is one factor. If it is not in occupation can it maintain the energy that is required to break down the patterns?"

"So, can the brain, in psychological matters, be entirely free from knowledge, from this kind of knowledge? That is, sir, look: I am a businessman and, I get into the car, or bus or a taxi, or the tube, and I am thinking what I am going to do, whom I am going to meet, a business talk, and my mind is all the time living in that area. I come home, there is a wife and children, sex and all that, that also becomes a psychological knowledge from which I am acting. So there is the knowledge of my business and contacts and all that, and also there is the knowledge with regard to my wife, and myself and my reactions: so these two are in contradiction. Or I am unaware of these two and just carry on. If I am aware of these two it becomes a disturbing factor."

"We are asking now, having understood all that, after this discussion, can the brain itself renew, rejuvenate, become young again without any shrinkage at all? I think it can. I want to open a new chapter and discuss it. I think it can. I say, psychologically knowledge that man has acquired is crippling it."

Søndag 10. marts kl. 10

At leve uden at dømme

Hej alle,

Hermed emne og K tekster til søndag 10. marts.

Emne

At leve uden at dømme

Tekster:

K om at dømme 

Attentiveness becomes inattention the moment you judge or evaluate. 

Judgment and evaluation are part of our conditioning. 

Our lives are a series of conflicts and struggles. We are not at any moment peaceful, deeply quiet within ourselves. 

We are struggling to become, which means there is a division between the observer and the observed. The observer is always trying to change or become that which he has observed. 

When this is understood very deeply, you will see that the observer is the whole content of conditioning. 

The observer is the past and therefore is the conditioning. 

The observer is the values, judgments, hopes, fears, despairs, miseries, sorrows – sane or neurotic. 

When he observes, he is bringing the whole of that conditioning to judge, evaluate or do something about that which he observes. 

From Public Talk 2 in Amsterdam, 4 May 1969

K om måling og sammenligning

The better is the outcome of comparison. The better picture, the better technique, the greater musician, the more talented, the more beautiful and the more intelligent depend on this comparison. We rarely look at a painting for itself, or at a man or woman for themselves. There is always this inbred quality of comparison. Is love comparison? Can you ever say you love this one more than that one? When there is this comparison, is that love? When there is this feeling of the more, which is measurement, then thought is in operation. Love is not the movement of thought. This measurement is comparison. We are encouraged throughout our life to compare. When in your school you compare B with A you are destroying both of them.

So is it possible to educate without any sense of comparison? And why do we compare? We compare for the simple reason that measuring is the way of thought and the way of our life. We are educated in this corruption. The better is always nobler than what is, than what is actually going on. The observation of what is, without comparison, without the measure, is to go beyond what is.

When there is no comparison there is integrity. It is not that you are true to yourself, which is a form of measurement, but when there is no measurement at all there is this quality of wholeness. The essence of the ego, the me, is measurement. When there is measurement there is fragmentation. This must be profoundly understood not as an idea but as an actuality. When you read this statement you may make an abstraction of it as an idea, a concept, and the abstraction is another form of measurement. That which is has no measurement. Please give your heart to the understanding of this. When you have grasped the full significance of this, your relationship with the student and with your own family will become something quite different. If you ask if that difference will be better, then you are caught in the wheel of measurement. Then you are lost. You will find the difference when you actually test this out. The very word difference implies measurement but we are using the word non-comparatively. Almost every word we use has this feeling of measurement so the words affect our reactions and reactions deepen the sense of comparison. The word and the reaction are interrelated and the art lies in not being conditioned by the word, which means that language does not shape us. Use the word without the psychological reactions to it.

https://kfoundation.org/krishnamurti-the-whole-movement-of-life-is-learning-when-there-is-no-measurement-there-is-a-quality-of-wholeness/

K om analyse

As we said, analysis has no place in observation. Analysis is the discovery of the cause and the effect. Right? (It's all right, sir - the bird. Perhaps it likes us!) Please understand this, and go into it carefully because observation is entirely different from analysis. Observation is immediate: you see the tree; but if you begin to analyse you never see the tree. Right? Understand this. That is, to observe means seeing, being sensitive, aware, and without any movement of thought. Just to observe. I wonder. Right? I am going slowly. When I said 'without thought', I am going to go into it. Be patient.

So observation is not analysis. Analysis implies the analyser who is analysing something outside of himself. The analyser thinks he understands, has superior knowledge and he is analysing something outside of himself. But if you observe very carefully, the analyser is the analysed. Right? You follow this? If you see that, not as an idea, but as a fact. You understand? Like anger is not different from you, you are anger. When you are angry, at the moment of anger there is no division between the I and the anger. But later on, a few seconds later, you say, I have been angry. So you have separated yourself from that reaction which you have called anger. So in the same way when you analyse yourself, or being analysed by another, the analyser is part of the analysis, part of the thing which is analysing, it is not separate from the analysed. Right? Please understand this, go into it in yourself as we are talking. This is thinking together. I am not - the speaker is not telling you what to think, which is generally what people do: the professors, the analysts, the preachers, and all the rest of it; we are not doing that. What we are saying is, as long as there is a division between the analyser and the analysed there must be conflict. Right? But that is an illusion, it is not a fact. The fact is the observer is the observed, psychologically. Right? I observe that tree, but the tree is not me, I am not the tree. But psychologically, inwardly, the reaction of anger, greed, jealousy, is me. I am not separate from that. But we have separated it in order to do something about it. Vous avez compris? I mean, you understand? I feel violence, and I create the idea of non-violence, and I will do something about the violence. But the fact is I am violence, I am not different from the fact. Then a totally different movement takes place. You understand? I wonder if you understand.

J. Krishnamurti Ojai 2nd Public Talk 4th May 1980

--

Med venlig hilsen/best regards

Peter

Søndag 3. marts kl. 10

Er Krishnamurtis lære praktisk?

del 2

focus vil være på sidste halvdel af nedenstående tekst, som kan læses ved at man klikker på linket nedenfor.

Is Krishnamurti’s Teaching Practical?

Based on a talk delivered at the KFA Gathering in Ojai, California in May 2011

Søndag 25. februar kl. 10

En samtale om nedenstående video

Søndag 18. februar kl. 10

Er Krishnamurtis lære praktisk?

“After all, what is practical? Think it out. The way we are living now, the way we are teaching, the way our governments are being run with their corruption and incessant wars - do you call that practical? Is ambition practical, is greed practical? Ambition breeds competition and therefore destroys people. A society based on greed and acquisition has always within it the spectre of war, conflict, suffering; and is that practical? Obviously it is not. ”

Jiddu Krishnamurti, This Matter of Culture, Chapter 23

Is Krishnamurti’s Teaching Practical?

Based on a talk delivered at the KFA Gathering in Ojai, California in May 2011

ovenstående er kap. 21 fra bogen:

A jewel on a silver platter: Remembering Jiddu Krishnamurti Kindle Edition

by Padmanabhan Krishna (Author) 

Søndag 11. februar kl. 10

Er vores liv altid bestemt af fortiden?

"There is a cause and an effect, an effect that may be immediate or postponed. The movement from the cause to the effect is time. One has done something in the past which was not correct; the effect of that may be that one pays for it immediately, or perhaps in five years’ time. There is cause followed by an effect; the interval, whether it is a second or years, is the movement of time. But, is intelligence the movement of time? Think it over, examine it, because this is not a verbal clarification, it is not a verbal explanation; but perceive the reality of it, the truth of it."

"We are saying that where there is a cause, the effect can be ended with the ending of the cause. If one has tuberculosis it is the cause of one’s coughing and loss of blood; that cause can be cured and the effect will disappear. All one’s life is the movement of cause and effect: you flatter me, I am delighted and I flatter you. You say something unpleasant; I hate you. In all this movement there is cause and effect. Of course. We are asking: is there a life, a way of living, without causation? But first we must understand the implications of ending. One ends anger or greed in order to achieve something else; that ending leads to further cause. What is it to end? Is ending a continuation? One ends something and begins something else which is another form of the same thing. To go into this very deeply one has to understand the conflict of the opposites, the conflict of duality. One is greedy and for various social or economic reasons one must end it. In the ending of it one wants something else, which then is a cause. The something else is the result of the greed. In ending the greed one has merely replaced it by something else. One is violent by nature; violence has been inherited from the animal and so on. One wants to end violence because one feels it is too stupid. In trying to end violence one is trying to find a field which is non-violent, which has no shadow of violence in it. But one has not really ended violence, one has only translated that feeling into another feeling, but the principle is the same."

Begge citater er fra Krishnamurti's bog 'The Flame of Attention'

Her er hele teksten:
Krishnamurti: Our Lives Are the Movement of Cause and Effect (kfoundation.org)

Søndag 4. februar kl. 10

Dagens emne svæver lidt i luften men vi kommer nok ind på nedenstående

Søndag 28. januar kl. 10

Dialogen tager afsæt i nedenstående tale

Can the mind be free of fear? | J. Krishnamurti (jkrishnamurti.org)

Søndag 21. januar kl. 10

Dialogen tager afsæt i nedenstående tale

Din bevidsthed er hele menneskehedens bevidsthed.

Public Talk 1 Calcutta (Kolkata), India - 20 November 1982

Søndag 14. januar kl. 10

Krishnamurti dialog

En dialog er en måde at lære sig selv, og dermed mennesket at kende. Vi prøver ikke at overbevise hinanden om noget. Vi iagttager os selv ved at lytte til Krishnamurti og til hinanden. Krishnamurti var kun optaget af en ting - at sætte mennesket fri.

Vi må fra starten forstå at dette ikke er hvad vi normalt forstår ved foredrag. Det er en samtale mellem dig og taleren, og taleren er ikke ude på at fortælle dig hvad du skal gøre, hvad du skal tænke, hvordan du skal opføre dig og så videre. Han har ingen autoritet. Dette er en samtale mellem to mennesker som bekymrer sig om hvad der sker i verden, hvad der sker med mennesket, ikke et bestemt menneske, men mennesket i verden, hvad gør mennesket mod mennesket. Og vi vil tale sammen lidenskabeligt, objektivt, venligt; vi vil tænke over hvad det er der egentlig sker i verden, ikke i en bestemt del af verden, men hvad sker der med mennesket på jorden.

For at have en seriøs samtale, må vi lære at lytte. Vi lytter næsten aldrig til hinanden. Vi fremturer med vores egne tanker, vores egne problemer, med vores egne særlige idéer og konklusioner, og derfor er det meget svært at lytte til andre. Det vi foreslår er, at du lytter, og det er en kunst at lytte.

Vi skal tale om rigtigt mange ting; splittede nationer, splittede grupper, krigslignende tilstande, forholdet mellem mennesker. Vi skal tale om frygtens problem, nydelse og hele kompleksiteten af den menneskelige tanke. Vi skal tale om hvorvidt sorgen nogensinde kan ende, og om dødens konsekvens og kompleksitet. Vi skal tale om religion, om hvad meditation er, og om der findes noget helligt, evigt. Alle disse ting skal vi tale sammen om, og man må lære kunsten det er at lytte til alt dette; ikke lytte til hvad du tænker med alle dine traditioner, med al din viden, men at lytte til en anden, der fortæller dig noget. Og så bliver kommunikationen enkel, let.

Så taleren er ikke en guru. Han vil ikke belære jer om hvad I skal tænke, hvordan I skal tænke, men vi skal sammen observere menneskers aktiviteter overalt i verden: hvorfor vi, efter fyrre tusind års evolution, er blevet hvad vi er; hvorfor vi dræber hinanden, ødelægger hinanden, udnytter hinanden; hvorfor vi har delt verden op i nationaliteter som jøden, araberen, hinduen, muslimen og så videre. Vi skal se på alt dette fordi det er vigtigt at se, at observere, men ikke fra et bestemt synspunkt, ikke fra et indisk, europæisk, russisk, kinesisk eller amerikansk synspunkt. Vi skal sammen se hvorfor mennesket er blevet som det er: kynisk, destruktivt, voldeligt, idealistisk, samtidig med at det i den teknologiske verden laver utrolige ting. Så please, vi tænker sammen, vi er ikke enige, vi stejler ikke over hvad der bliver sagt, vi accepterer det heller ikke, men observerer, vi ser, som på et kort, nøjagtigt hvad der foregår.

Public Talk 1 Calcutta (Kolkata), India - 20 November 1982.

Ingen dialoger før søndag 7. januar kl. 10

Søndag 17. december kl. 10

Betingning og fri vilje

 “Can the conditioned mind free itself”

Søndag 10. december kl. 10

Emner til Nordic Retreat 2024

What Is Going to Happen in the Future? - The Immeasurable

Søndag 3. december kl. 10

Emner til Nordic Retreat 2024

Text on Inquiry as Via Negativa

Part III - Chapter 1 - Small Group Dialogue, Ojai, California - 22nd March 1977

https://www.jkrishnamurti.org/content/part-iii-chapter-1-small-group-dialogue-ojai-california-22nd-march-1977/ojai%201977

KRISHNAMURTI: Is it the expression of truth? There are two things involved. The speaker is either talking out of the silence of truth, or he is talking out of the noise of an illusion which he considers to be the truth.

K: It may be self evident to you and yet an illusion. It is such a dangerous, delicate thing.

K Isn’t there a terrible danger in this?

Q I am sure there is a danger.

K So you are now saying that one has to walk in danger. 

QYes.

K Now I begin to understand what you are saying. 

A path full of mines, the razor’s edge path

Søndag 26. november kl. 10

Emner til Nordic Retreat 2024

Søndag 19. november kl. 10

Via Negativa

 dialog

KRISHNAMURTI: Is it the expression of truth? There are two things involved. The speaker is either talking out of the silence of truth, or he is talking out of the noise of an illusion which he considers to be the truth.

K: It may be self evident to you and yet an illusion. It is such a dangerous, delicate thing.

K Isn’t there a terrible danger in this?
Q I am sure there is a danger.
K So you are now saying that one has to walk in danger. 

QYes.
K Now I begin to understand what you are saying. 

A path full of mines, the razor’s edge path

Text: 

Part III - Chapter 1 - Small Group Dialogue, Ojai, California - 22nd March 1977

--

Med venlig hilsen/best regards

Peter

Søndag 12. november kl. 10

Selvkendskab

 dialog

Søndag 5. november kl. 10

Om at iagttage- du ser mere med dit sind end med dit øje.

Oplægget er en Video med  bevidsthedsforskeren Anil Seth samt  en tekst af Krishnamurti som vi hver især ser på inden dialogen.

Do we all perceive the world the same way? - BBC Ideas

Andre videoer m. Seth:
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality | Anil Seth - YouTube

17 min.
Anil Seth: How your brain invents your "self" | TED - YouTube
23 min.
Der er mange videoer med Anil Seth på YouTube, men de er væsentligt længere.

Citat af Krishnamurti:

(Link til hele Krishnamurti talen:How does the observer come into being? | J. Krishnamurti (jkrishnamurti.org))

"Now, what does that word 'observe' mean? There is not only the sensory perception with the eye - you see this bougainvillaea, sensory perception. Then - please follow this step by step - then as you observe that... both that colour then you have an image, you make an image, you have already an image, you have a name for it, you like it or dislike it, you have preference. So the images that you have about that flower, that... through that image you see, you don't actually see it but your mind sees it more than the eye. Right? Please do understand this very simple fact, that we look not only at nature, which is being destroyed by human beings - pollution and all the rest of it that is going on in this terrible world - we not only look at nature with the eyes that have accumulated knowledge about nature, and therefore with an image, we also look at human beings with our various forms of conclusions, opinions, judgements and values. That is, you are a Hindu, another is a Pakistan, Muslim. You are a Catholic, another is a Protestant, Communist and so on and on and on - the division. So when you look - please listen - when you observe yourself, your life, you observe it through the image, through the conclusions that you have already formed. You say, 'This is good', or 'This is bad' or this should be and that should not be. You are following all this? So you are looking, observing with the images, conclusions that you have formed, and therefore you are not actually looking at life. You understand this very simple fact?

So in order to look at our life as it is there must be freedom of observation. You must not look at it as a Hindu, as a bureaucrat, as a family man, as a - god knows what else! You must look at it with freedom. You understand? And that is the difficulty. You look at your life - the despair, the agony, the sorrow, this vast struggle - you look at it all with eyes that have said, and ears that have said, 'This must changed into something else', 'This must be transformed in order to make it more beautiful'. So actually when you are doing that you are not directly in relationship with what you see. Right? Are you following this? Not the explanation which the speaker is giving but actually observing your life, actually observing how you look at it. Whether you look at it with your image, with your conclusion, and therefore not looking at it but looking through the past images and therefore not coming directly in contact with it. Right? So, when you look at life, that is, the life of your daily existence, not the theoretical life, not the abstract life which says, 'All human beings are one, all love' - you know, all that tommyrot - but actually when you observe it you see that you are looking with your past knowledge, with all the images, the tradition, the accumulation of all human experience which prevents you from looking. That's a fact which must be realised, that to observe actually your life you must look at it afresh. That is, to look at it without any condemnation, without any ideal, without any desire to suppress it or change it - just to observe.

Are you doing this? Are you using the speaker as a mirror in which you are seeing your own life? And because you are seeing it with conclusion it prevents you from looking at it directly, being in contact with it. Right? Are you doing this? Not that you will do it when you go home, because if you don't do it now you won't do it later. If you are not doing it then don't bother to listen. Look at the sky, look at that tree, look at the beauty of the light, look at the clouds with their curve, with their delicacy. If you look at it without any image you have understood your own life.

So, that is, you are looking at yourself, at your life, as an observer and your life as something to be observed. Right? There is a division between the observer and the observed. Isn't that simple? That is, you are looking at your life. You, as an observer, something separate from your life. Right? So there is a division between the observer and the observed. Now, this division is the essence of all conflict, essence of all struggle, pain, fear, despair. That is, where there is a division between human beings - the division of nationalities, the division of religion, social division - wherever there is a division there must be conflict. This is law, this is reason, logic. There is Pakistan on one side and India on the other, battling with each other; you are a Brahmin and another is a non-Brahmin and hate, division. So that externalised division with all its conflict is the same as the inward division, as the observer and the observed. You have understood this? If you don't understand this, you can't go much further because a mind that is in conflict cannot possibly ever understand what truth is. Because a mind in conflict is a tortured mind, a twisted mind, a distorted mind and how can such a mind be free to observe the beauty of the earth or the beauty of the sky, the tree, the beauty of a child or a beautiful woman or a man; and the beauty of extreme sensitivity and all that is involved in it. So without understanding this basic principle, not as an ideal, as a fact that as long as you have a Pakistan on one side and India on the other, with all the awful politicians and all the gang on both sides, you are inevitably going to have conflict. So in the same way, as long as there is an observer and the thing observed there must be in you conflict. And when there is conflict in you, you project that conflict outwardly. Now, most of us realise this. And we do not know how to observe without the observer. You understand? How to dissolve this conflict and therefore we resort to the various escapes, gurus and ideals and all that nonsense.

Now, we are going to find out for ourselves - not from the speaker - find out whether it is possible to end this division as the observer and the observed. You are following all this? Please, this is important if we are really to move any further because we are going to go into the question of what love is, what death is, what is the beauty of truth, what is meditation and the mind that's completely and totally still. And to understand the highest, one must begin with the ending of conflict. And this conflict exists wherever there is the observer and the observed. And so the question is, the next question: what is this observer? You understand? The observer who has separated himself from the observed. Please, this is not a philosophy, an intellectual affair, a thing which you can discuss, deny, agree or disagree; this is something you have to... you see it yourself, and therefore it is yours, not the speaker's. We see that when you are angry, at the moment of anger there is no observer. At the moment of experiencing anything there is no observer. When you look at - please look - when you look at that sunset, and that sunset is something immense, when you look at it at that moment there is no observer who says, 'I am seeing the sunset'. A second later comes the observer. That is, you are angry. At the moment of anger there is no observer, no experiencer, there is only that state of anger; a second later comes the observer who says, 'I should not have been angry', or the observer says, 'I was justified in being angry' - a second later, not at the moment of anger, then is the beginning of division. You understand?

So, how does this happen? Why does... at the moment of experience there is the total absence of the observer, and how does it happen that a second later the observer comes into being? Right? You are putting the question, not I, not the speaker, put it for yourself and you'll find the answer. You understand sir? You have got to work because this is your life, and if you say, 'Well, I have learned something from the speaker', then you have learned absolutely nothing. You have just collected a few words and those few words put together becomes the idea. Ordered thought is idea, and we are not talking about ideas, we are not talking about a new philosophy. Philosophy means the love of truth in daily life - not the truth of some philosophical mind that invents.

So, how does this observer come into being? That is, sir, when you look at this flower, at the moment you observe it closely there is no observer, there is only a looking. Then you say, 'That is...' - you begin to name that flower. Right? Then you say, 'I wish I had it in my garden, or in my house'. Then you have already begun to build an image about that flower. So the image-maker is the observer. Right? Are you following all this? Watch it in yourself please. So the image and the image-maker is the observer, and the observer is the past, the 'me' as the observer is the past, the 'me' is the knowledge which I have accumulated - knowledge of pain, sorrow, suffering, agony, despair, loneliness, jealousy, the tremendous anxiety that one goes through, that is all the 'me', which is the accumulated knowledge of the observer, which is the past. Right? So when you observe, the observer looks at that flower with the eyes of the past. And you don't know how to look without the observer and therefore you bring about conflict.

So now our question is: can you look, not only at the flower, but at your life, at your agony, at your despair, your sorrow, can you look at it without naming it, without saying to yourself, 'I must go beyond it', 'I must suppress it'? - just to look at it without the observer. Do it please as we are talking now. That is, take your particular form, or particular tendency, or take - which most people are - envy. All right, let's take that. You know what envy is, don't you, very well? You are very familiar with that. Envy is comparison. The measurement of thought comparing what you are with what should be, or with what you want to become. So you know what envy is. Now just look, take it. Now, when that reaction comes into being, that is you are envious of your neighbour who has got a bigger car, better house, is an awful politician - you know, all the rest of it. And you look at it and you suddenly feel envious. That is, you have compared yourself with him, and envy is born. Now, you have that envy, you know what that feeling is. Now can you look at that feeling without saying that is right or wrong, without naming it? You understand? Without saying that it is envy. To look at it without any image, then you go beyond it. You have understood? Instead of struggling with envy, that you should or should not, that you must suppress it because so and so, you know, without going through all that struggle and nonsensical... without any meaning, observe your anger, your envy, without naming it because the naming is the movement of the past memory which justifies or condemns. But if you can look at it without naming then you will see that you go beyond it.

So the moment you know the possibility of going beyond 'what is', you are full of energy. Right? It's the man who doesn't know how to go beyond 'what is', because he doesn't know how to deal with it, therefore he is afraid, he escapes. Then seeing the impossibility of it, such a person loses energy. You understand this sir? If you have a problem, can solve it, then you have energy. A man who has a thousand problems, doesn't know what to do with them, he loses his energy. So in the same way, look at your life, what it is: ugly, petty, shallow, extraordinarily violent. These are all words to describe what is actually going on, not only the violence in sex but violence that abides with power, position, prestige. Now, look at it with eyes that don't immediately jump with images."

Mvh Rasmus

Søndag 29. oktober kl. 10

A mind free of the ‘me’

Se videoen og tag del i dialogen

Let's think together | Krishnamurti

en bonus-video

Bh. Michael

Søndag 22. oktober kl. 10

Hvad er skønhed? Den æstetiske dømmekraft.

Oplæg og dialog

When there is total absence of yourself, beauty is.
- Krishnamurti

Beauty is not of time.

Like love, it cannot be divided as yesterday, today and tomorrow. When one divides it, there are all the problems of love – jealousy, envy, domination, possessiveness, all the problems that are involved in relationship, in what one calls love.

And with that beauty, which is not the result of fragmented time, then painting, music and all the modern gimmicks and tricks have no meaning whatsoever, because anything that is of time, that is of the period, of this century, of this modern revolt and so on, the expression of all that, denies beauty.

Beauty cannot be translated in terms of time.

- Krishnamurti

--

Med venlig hilsen/best regards

Peter

Søndag 15. oktober kl.10

kedsomhed

Vi læser og taler om nedenstående tekst

Commentaries of Living ll kapitel 6 Boredom

Søndag 8. oktober kl.10

Sårbarhed - Sensitivitet - "Ending"

3 input til dialog

To be vulnerable is to live, and to withdraw is to die.

Sensitivitet betyder at være fintfølende overfor alt omkring én - overfor planterne, dyrene, træerne, himlen, vandet i floderne, fuglene på vingerne; det betyder også at man bemærker humøret i folk omkring én og i den fremmede der går forbi. Denne sensitivitet skaber en ikke-kalkulerende, uselvisk respons, hvilket er sand moral og adfærd. 

Life Ahead/introduction

Ending

Søndag 1. oktober kl.10

Intet emne

For sjov er her lidt at læse - hvis du har tid:

Hvad handler livet om?

Søndag 24. september kl.10

Choiceless awareness - en lutring af sjælen?

Har Choiceless awareness en katarsisk virkning?

oplæg og diskussion

You know the psychological fears dominate the physical - that is obvious - and therefore the body, the instrument, the organism loses its own intelligence. You understand? If the fears of the psyche are constantly in operation, as with most people, then there is a tremendous strain on the organism. It is frightened, it is nervous, it is always apprehensive, always guarding itself, never open. And so those psychological fears affect very deeply the physical organism. And the inner affects the outer and therefore its own native intelligence of the body is being destroyed, as you destroy the organism through the pleasure of a taste - smoking, drinking, drugs, eating a lot of meat, you know all the rest of it that goes on because you are trained, you are educated along these lines. Therefore that is always destroying the deep organic intelligence. So when there is no fear inwardly the organism operates with its own intelligence, and therefore it is quite a different operation. You understand? Nothing is dictated to it.

(Observation and fear, Public Talk 2 Saanen, Switzerland - 13 July 1976)

Meditation is not a means to an end; there is no end, no arrival; it is a movement in time and out of time. Every system, method, binds thought to time, but choiceless awareness of every thought and feeling, understanding of their motives, their mechanism, allowing them to blossom, is the beginning of meditation. When thought and feeling flourish and die, meditation is the movement beyond time. In this movement there is ecstasy; in complete emptiness there is love, and with love there is destruction and creation.

(Krishnamurti's Notebook, p. 192)

Mvh Peter

Søndag 17. september kl.10

The Source and Structure of Memory and Thought

en Krishnamurti dialog

Mvh Rasmus

Søndag 10. september kl.10

Observing without Judgement

en Krishnamurti dialog

Her er et par korte videoer som er relevante for søndagens emne "Observing without Judgement" KH, Michael.

Søndag 27. august kl.10

Ending Thought

Dialogen tager afsæt i nedenstående 

Questioner: I wonder what you really mean by ending thought. I talked to a friend about it and he said it is some kind of oriental nonsense. To him thought is the highest form of intelligence and action, the very salt of life, indispensable. It has created civilization, and all relationship is based on it. All of us accept this, from the greatest thinker to the humblest labourer. When we don't think we sleep, vegetate or daydream; we are vacant, dull and unproductive, whereas when we are awake we are thinking, doing, living, quarrelling: these are the only two states we know. You say, be beyond both - beyond thought and vacant inactivity. What do you mean by this?

Krishnamurti: Very simply put, thought is the response of memory, the past. The past is an infinity or a second ago. When thought acts it is this past which is acting as memory, as experience, as knowledge, as opportunity. All will is desire based on this past and directed towards pleasure or the avoidance of pain. When thought is functioning it is the past, therefore there is no new living at all; it is the past living in the present, modifying itself and the present. So there is nothing new in life that way, and when something new is to be found there must be the absence of the past, the mind must not be cluttered up with thought, fear, pleasure, and everything else. Only when the mind is uncluttered can the new come into being, and for this reason we say that thought must be still, operating only when it has to - objectively, efficiently. All continuity is thought; when there is continuity there is nothing new. Do you see how important this is? It's really a question of life itself. Either you live in the past, or you live totally differently: that is the whole point.

Questioner: I think I do see what you mean, but how in the world is one to end this thought? When I listen to the blackbird there is thought telling me instantly it is the blackbird; when I walk down the street thought tells me I am walking down the street and tells me all I recognise and see; when I play with the notion of not thinking it is again thought that plays this game. All meaning and understanding and communication are thought. Even when I am not communicating with someone else I am doing so with myself. When I am awake, I think, when I am asleep I think. The whole structure of my being is thought. Its roots lie far deeper than I know. All I think and do and all I am is thought, thought creating pleasure and pain, appetites, longings, resolutions, conclusions, hopes, fears and questions. Thought commits murder and thought forgives. So how can one go beyond it? Isn't it thought again which seeks to go beyond it?

Krishnamurti: We both said, when thought is still, something new can be. We both saw that point clearly and to understand it clearly is the ending of thought.

Questioner: But that understanding is also thought.

Krishnamurti: Is it? You assume that it is thought, but is it, actually?

Questioner: It is a mental movement with meaning, a communication to oneself.

Krishnamurti: If it is a communication to oneself it is thought. But is understanding a mental movement with meaning?

Questioner: Yes it is.

Krishnamurti: The meaning of the word and the understanding of that meaning is thought. That is necessary in life. There thought must function efficiently. It is a technological matter. But you are not asking that. You are asking how thought, which is the very movement of life as you know it, can come to an end. Can it only end when you die? That is really your question, isn't it?

Questioner: Yes.

Krishnamurti: That is the right question. Die! Die to the past, to tradition.

Questioner: But how?

Krishnamurti: The brain is the source of thought. The brain is matter and thought is matter. Can the brain - with all its reactions and its immediate responses to every challenge and demand - can that brain be very still? It is not a question of ending thought, but of whether the brain can be completely still. Can it act with full capacity when necessary and otherwise be still? This stillness is not physical death. See what happens when the brain is completely still. See what happens.

Questioner: In that space there was a blackbird, the green tree, the blue sky, the man hammering next door, the sound of the wind in the trees and my own heartbeat, the total quietness of the body. That is all.

Krishnamurti: If there was recognition of the blackbird singing, then the brain was active, was interpreting. It was not still. This really demands tremendous alertness and discipline, the watching that brings its own discipline, not imposed or brought about by your unconscious desire to achieve a result or a pleasurable new experience. Therefore during the day thought must operate effectively, sanely, and also watch itself.

Questioner: That is easy, but what about going beyond it?

Krishnamurti: Who is asking this question? Is it the desire to experience something new or is it the enquiry? If it is the enquiry, then you must enquire and investigate the whole business of thinking and be completely familiar with it, know all its tricks and subtleties. If you have done this you will know that the question of going beyond thought is an empty one. Going beyond thought is knowing what thought is.

The Urgency of Change

Dette er en tekst fra sidst, og jeg nævnte der var noget jeg ikke syntes vi kom ind på - så måske vi også kunne tale om hvad vi forstår ved space?

Hilsen Henrik

The booklet Meditations 1969:

In the space which thought creates around itself there is no love. This space divides
man from man, and in it is all the becoming, the battle of life, the agony and fear.
Meditation is the ending of this space, the ending of the me. Then relationship has
quite a different meaning, for in that space which is not made by thought, the other
does not exist, for you do not exist. Meditation then is not the pursuit of some
vision, however sanctified by tradition. Rather it is the endless space where thought
cannot enter. To us, the little space made by thought around itself, which is the me,
is extremely important, for this is all the mind knows, identifying itself with
everything that is in that space. And the fear of not being is born in that space. But
in meditation, when this is understood, the mind can enter into a dimension of
space where action is inaction. We do not know what love is, for in the space made
by thought around itself as the me, love is the conflict of the me and the not-me.
This conflict, this torture, is not love. Thought is the very denial of love, and it
cannot enter into that space where the me is not. In that space is the benediction
which man seeks and cannot find. He seeks it within the frontiers of thought, and

thought destroys the ecstasy of this benediction.

Søndag 20. august kl.10

Going beyond thought

Dialogen tager afsæt i nedenstående 

A morning dialogue about ’Going beyond thought’

Bing AI.
What does J. Krishnamurti mean by the words ‘going beyond thought?’:
J. Krishnamurti talked about going beyond thought as a way of exploring the nature
of reality and oneself without the limitations of the past, time and conditioning. He
proposed that thought is based on memory, which is always incomplete and
distorted, and that it cannot capture the essence of life, which is constantly
changing and unknown. He also suggested that there is an action that is not
touched by thought, which is based on love, intelligence and compassion.

J.Krishnamurti.org.

From Interview 2 by Gary Null at Brockwood Park, 17 October 1980:
Krishnamurti: There is something beyond all thought, beyond all measure, which is
timeless. We can call it, for the moment, truth. There is that truth that is sacred.
And man has sought this thing but has been trapped by other unnecessary things
on his journey to find that. To come to that, one must have an extraordinarily quiet
mind, a mind that is free of all problems, a mind that has established right
relationship with another, that in itself has complete, absolute order. We are using
the word ‘absolute’ in its real sense: order, which means no conflict, no
contradiction in oneself, and from that, no fear, the understanding of pleasure and
the ending of sorrow. When there is the ending of sorrow, the ending of fear and
the understanding of pleasure, out of that understanding comes love and
compassion with its intelligence. When that is well-established – not verbally or
intellectually but actually – then meditation is that quality of mind that is wholly
silent. Then, in that silence, there is that which is eternal, which is
sacred, beyond all images, all churches and all organisations.

Source unknown (https://www.jkrishnamurti.org/content/2ndconversation/2nd%20conversation):
Krishnamurti:
If [enlightenment] is an escape from everyday living, everyday living being the
extraordinary movement of relationship, then this so-called realization, this socalled enlightenment, or whatever name you like to give it, is illusion and hypocrisy.
Anything that denies love and the understanding of life and action is bound to
create a great deal of mischief. It distorts the mind, and life is made a horrible
affair. So if we take that to be axiomatic then perhaps we may proceed to find out if
enlightenment - whatever that may mean - can be found in the very act of living.
After all, living is more important than any idea, ideal goal or principle. It is
because we don't know what living is that we invent these visionary, unrealistic
concepts which offer escape. The real question is, can one find enlightenment in
living, in the everyday activities of life, or is it only for the few who are endowed
with some extraordinary capacity to discover this beatitude? Enlightenment means
to be a light unto oneself, but a light which is not self-projected or imagined, which
is not some personal idiosyncrasy. After all, this has always been the teaching of
true religion, though not of organized belief and fear.

Questioner: I still don't know what you mean by enlightenment?

Krishnamurti: A state of negation. Negation is the most positive action, not positive
assertion. This is a very important thing to understand. Most of us so easily accept
positive dogma, a positive creed, because we want to be secure, to belong, to be
attached, to depend. The positive attitude divides and brings about duality. The
conflict then begins between this attitude and others. But the negation of all values,
of all morality, of all beliefs, having no frontiers, cannot be in opposition to
anything. A positive statement in its very definition separates, and separation is
resistance. To this we are accustomed, this is our conditioning. To deny all this is
not immoral; on the contrary to deny all division and resistance is the highest
morality. To negate everything that man has invented, to negate all his values,
ethics and gods, is to be in a state of mind in which there is no duality, therefore no
resistance or conflict between opposites. In this state there are no opposites, and
this state is not the opposite of something else.
…
Krishnamurti: To deny [the positive attitude] is to deny oneself, and oneself is the
conditioned entity who continually pursues a conditioned good. To most of us
negation appears as a vacuum because we know activity only in the prison of our
conditioning, fear and misery. From that we look at negation and imagine it to be
some terrible state of oblivion or emptiness. To the man who has negated all the
assertions of society, religion, culture and morality, the man who is still in the
prison of social conformity is a man of sorrow. Negation is the state of
enlightenment which functions in all the activities of a man who is free of the past.
It is the past, with its tradition and its authority, that has to be negated. Negation is
freedom, and it is the free man who lives, loves, and knows what it means to die.

Questioner: That much is clear; but you say nothing about any intimation of
the transcendental, the divine, or whatever you like to call it.

Krishnamurti: The intimation of that can be found only in freedom, and any
statement about it is the denial of freedom; any statement about it becomes a
verbal communication without meaning. It is there, but it cannot be found or
invited, least of all imprisoned in any system, or ambushed by any clever tricks of
the mind. It is not in the churches or the temples or the mosques. There is no path
to it, no guru, no system that can reveal its beauty; its ecstasy comes only when
there is love. This is enlightenment.

The booklet Meditations 1969:
In the space which thought creates around itself there is no love. This space divides
man from man, and in it is all the becoming, the battle of life, the agony and fear.
Meditation is the ending of this space, the ending of the me. Then relationship has
quite a different meaning, for in that space which is not made by thought, the other
does not exist, for you do not exist. Meditation then is not the pursuit of some
vision, however sanctified by tradition. Rather it is the endless space where thought
cannot enter. To us, the little space made by thought around itself, which is the me,
is extremely important, for this is all the mind knows, identifying itself with
everything that is in that space. And the fear of not being is born in that space. But
in meditation, when this is understood, the mind can enter into a dimension of
space where action is inaction. We do not know what love is, for in the space made
by thought around itself as the me, love is the conflict of the me and the not-me.
This conflict, this torture, is not love. Thought is the very denial of love, and it
cannot enter into that space where the me is not. In that space is the benediction
which man seeks and cannot find. He seeks it within the frontiers of thought, and
thought destroys the ecstasy of this benediction

Mvh Rasmus

Søndag 13. august kl.10

Hvad er kilderne til psykologisk uorden

Dialogen tager afsæt i nedenstående 

Disorder is not outside of me; disorder is inside of me. That is a fact. Because the mind is disorderly, all its activities must be disorderly. And the activities of disorder are proliferating or moving in the world. Can this mind observe itself without introducing the opposite factor of an orderly mind?

- Krishnamurti, from Dialogue 5 with Allan W. Anderson in San Diego, California, 20 February 1974

Søndag 6. august kl.10

TÆNK SELV

Dialogen tager afsæt i nedenstående tekster

”When I began to think for myself”

Krishnamurti gjorde det helt klart at han ikke ønskede fortolkere, at han ikke autoriserede nogen til at udlægge det han havde at sige. Samtidig opfordrede han til at man satte spørgsmålstegn ved alt, også det han sagde, at man diskuterede det og selv opdagede hvad der var sandt og ikke sandt i alle væsentlige spørgsmål.

Fra The teachings.dk

WE ARE INCREASINGLY TOLD by others what to think and what to do about the issues in our lives and the world around us. Krishnamurti counters this movement, saying that what is essential is to find out for ourselves. He rejects any authority of his own, and of gurus, religions, psychologists, philosophers and politicians, saying there is no teacher and no taught. Instead, he suggests that we are as two friends, perhaps sitting in a park or walking along a quiet lane, talking over the deep problems of life amicably, frankly and easily.

Fra Introduction to Krishnamurti

Hvad vil det sige at tænke selv?

Hvad vil det sige at tænke sig om?

Hvad vil det sige at tænke klart?

Kan vi tænke sammen?

Er der en tænkning uden ord?

Måske vi også kommer ind på spørgsmålet om autoritet. Her er i hvert fald nogle citater.

Hilsen Henrik

Authority

YOU CANNOT DEPEND UPON ANYBODY

You cannot depend upon anybody. There is no guide, no teacher, no authority. There is only you – your relationship with others and with the world.

Krishnamurti, Freedom From the Known

NOBODY CAN TEACH YOU ABOUT YOURSELF

Nobody can teach you about yourself except yourself, so you have to be the guru and the disciple yourself, and learn from yourself. What you learn from another is not true.

Krishnamurti at Madras 1971, Talk 3

TO BE FREE OF ALL AUTHORITY

To be free of all authority, your own and that of another, is to die to everything of yesterday, so that your mind is fresh, young, innocent, full of vigour and passion.

Krishnamurti, Freedom From the Known

LEADERS AND FOLLOWERS

Leaders destroy the followers and followers destroy the leaders.

Krishnamurti, Freedom From the Known

DISORDER CREATES AUTHORITY

When one is in disorder and confusion, society becomes utterly chaotic; then that very disorder creates authority.

Krishnamurti, The Whole Movement of Life is Learning

Se kilde:                     Quotes by Krishnamurti • Krishnamurti Foundation Trust (kfoundation.org)

Søndag 30. juli kl.10

Krishnamurti om tanker

Dialogen tager afsæt i nedenstående tekster

KRISHNAMURTI:

…

What is thinking? When we say "I think", what do we mean by that? When are we conscious of this process of thinking? Surely, we are aware of it when there is a problem, when we are challenged, when we are asked a question, when there is friction. We are aware of it as a self-conscious process.

…

Surely, thinking is a reaction. If I ask you a question, to that you respond, - you respond according to your memory, to your prejudices, to your upbringing, to the climate, to the whole background of your conditioning; and according to that you reply, according to that you think. If you are a Christian, a communist, a Hindu, or what you will, that background responds; and it is this conditioning that obviously creates the problem. The centre of this background is the me in the process of action.

…

London, 7 April 1952

…

The beginning of thought is the brain registering, danger or not danger, the pleasure and the fear. Right? The original man or the ape from which we have come, or some source from which we have come, that brain which is very, very old, ancient beyond words, it must have registered danger, death, fear, security. Right? So the beginning of thought is the process of registration, which is memory. Right? We are not saying anything extraordinary, these are facts. And what has been registered is knowledge, knowledge of danger, knowledge of pleasure, knowledge of the fear between the two. And this accumulating process of knowledge, which is constant registration, day after day, centuries upon centuries registration, which is the accumulation of knowledge, that knowledge is in the brain, and that knowledge, which is memory, and from that memory thought is born. Right?

Questioner: Rubbish.

Krishnamurti: One moment. Sir, if you are disagreeing with me it is all right. Don't agree or disagree. We are not arguing - show off who is clever, who is less clever. But we are just enquiring, not asserting anything.

So memory, knowledge, is the outcome of the past. Right? So the past is limited, knowledge is limited. You may have more, more, more but it is always limited. And there have been people who say man can ascend only through knowledge, rise higher and higher and higher. The philosophers, the speculative intellectual romanticists, say that knowledge is the essence of growth. Which is, the past will always remain. The past, by accumulation, is evolution. As an acorn, a little thing grows into a marvellous, huge oak tree, so that same attitude, or that same example is transferred to this accumulative knowledge, growing, growing, growing. We have never asked whether knowledge is limited and therefore can knowledge end and something begin? You understand my question?

So thought born of memory, knowledge, is always everlastingly limited. And our activities therefore are always limited - based on thought. Right? It is not my argument. It is not what I posit and start from there. But if you go into this yourself, not according to some professor, not according to some theoretician, psychologist, then if you do, you become second-hand human beings, which we are. But whereas if you look into yourself and go at it, surgically, not emotionally, then you will find out that thought because of its very limitation has created all the problems. Right? Is this clear, between us or is this clear to yourself, not between you and me? All the scriptures, all the poems, all the literature, all the rituals, the gods, the images, everything is the product of thought. Horrible idea, isn't it, when you realise it.

So when there is identification with something, thought is the process of identification, therefore that identification limits, limits the energy, and that energy is used as an individual. Therefore the individual becomes more and more limited, and his action then will be limited, obviously. Which is what is happening. England on one side, Europe on the other, America, Russia - racially, politically, religiously, in every way - all that is based on thought. And is there an action - please, we are enquiring - is there an action which is not based on thought? Therefore an action which is not limited, confined, which means is there an action which is not based on knowledge, on memory, on remembrance? Don't say, 'That is impossible', or 'It is possible' - we don't know, we are enquiring, we are asking. Because in limited action there is regret, mischief, pain, anxiety, whether you have done the right thing or the wrong thing - all that follows from limited activity, which is called the individual. And the individual, limited, he is seeking the infinite. Theoretically they can assert there is the infinite, but to find out, to come upon that infinite, that thing which is not measurable, one must go into the very, very depths of thought. And is there a possibility of action without registration? Got it?

You understand? You tell me something, you use cruel words and you call me a name. I am hurt. And most human beings in the world are hurt, not only physiologically but much more psychologically. You are hurt, aren't you? And from that hurt we do all kinds of things - resist, withdrawal, fear, violence, bitterness and so on, so on, so on. This hurt is, if you examine it very closely, is the movement of thought in the formation of the image. Right? Thought has created an image about oneself, that you are beautiful, that you are intellectually marvellous, that you are etc. etc. And when you use an ugly word, angrily point it out, that image gets hurt; which is, thought - please follow all this - that thought, which has created an image about itself, that image gets hurt. Which is: can one live right throughout life without a single hurt? Then only there is freedom, then there is only sanity.

…

Public Talk 3 Saanen, Switzerland - 13 July 1978

Søndag 23. juli kl.10

Dialogen tager udgangspunkt i nedenstående

The Krishnamurti Educational Center

Rupert Spira Podcast

Hej - her er, som aftalt, podcasten med Rupert Spira.

KH, Michael. 

In this episode, Rupert talks with Henry Fischer and Jaap Sluijter from the Krishnamurti Educational Center in California. Their discussion includes Rupert's meeting Krishnamurti, the relationship between thoughts and awareness, and the John Smith/King Lear metaphor for understanding the illusory separate self.

You can find out more about the Krishnamurti Foundation of America via either of the links below.     Website: kfa.org  Podcast: theimmeasurable.org

Listen on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ch/podcast/rupert-spira-podcast/id1494564673?i=1000518816903

Søndag 16. juli kl.10

Dialogen tager udgangspunkt i nedenstående

Kære alle,
Her vedhæftet et Q&A fra Public Talk 6 Saanen 1968.
Resten af talen er om noget andet, men hele  talen kan læses her:
Public Talk 6 Saanen, Switzerland - 18 July 1968 | J. Krishnamurti (jkrishnamurti.org)

Mvh Rasmus

Public Talk 6 Saanen, Switzerland - 18 July 1968

…

Questioner: (Inaudible)

Krishnamurti: You are asking, not only what is awareness, but also when there is not that awareness all the old responses come into being. Right? How is one to prevent, or to inhibit, or to put aside, the old responses? Right? To put it in different words - perhaps that may help - there is a state of inattention and attention - right? When you are completely giving your mind, your heart, your nerves, everything you have to attend, the old habits, the mechanical responses don't enter into it, thought doesn't come into it at all. But we can't maintain that all the time so we are mostly in a state of inattention, a state in which there is not an alert, choiceless awareness. So what takes place? There is inattention and rare attention, and we are trying to bridge the one to the other. Right? We say how can my inattention become attentive? Or can I be so totally, completely attentive all the time? Right? Is that the question? Right. Inattention can never become attention - right? How can it? How can you make hate into love? You can't. But if you investigate the ways of inattention, watch it, how inattention grows, be aware of it and not try to make inattention into attention - be inattentive - right? Take it the other way - be inattentive, and know that you are inattentive. Right? Watch it, what is happening, look at it very carefully! Do listen, do listen. I said - the speaker said, not me - be aware that you are inattentive. Right? Don't try to make inattention - force it to become attention. Right? You can't do it. But if you say ' I'll be aware that I am inattentive' - you understand? - be aware that you are inattentive, then you have changed it. You understand what I am talking about? Q: (Inaudible) K: Ah! No, no. Do please look at it, look at it, don't come to any conclusion, first look. There are two states. One is inattention - right? And the other, in rare moments, you know when you are completely attentive, when thought doesn't come into it at all, then you will discover something totally new. Right? In that complete attention there is a different dimension altogether. You know that, you have felt it, you have remembered it, it has become a memory, and you say to yourself 'By Jove, I wish I could capture that again, keep hold of it, don't let it go.' When you say 'I want to hold it, I mustn't let it go', that is the state of inattention. Right? So, be aware of inattention - not how to be attentive. Right? And don't do anything about inattention - all right I am inattentive, but I am very careful, I'm watching it, I'm not trying to give it a shape, I'm not trying to change it, I'm just watching it. The very watching is attention.

Her er hele talen :

Public Talk 6 Saanen, Switzerland - 18 July 1968 | J. Krishnamurti (jkrishnamurti.org)

Søndag 9. juli kl.10

The Wrong Turn

Ifølge Krishnamurti og David Bohm, skete der på et tidspunkt en afgørende forandring i den menneskelige psyke. Vi mennesker tog den forkerte vej, den forkerte vending (the wrong turn). Det skete, da vi begyndte at leve i en verden af tilblivelse (becoming). Derefter kom ideen om et selv (center, ego), som forsøger at blive noget andet, end det er. Uden selvet og selvets forestillinger er der ingen tilblivelse. 

Om Ks forståelse af den psykologisk bevægelse tilblivelse, se

Madras 23rd Group Discussion 11th December, 1947

Søndag 2. juli kl.10

Dialogen tager udgangspunkt i nedenstående 

Hej,  

her er et par citater til at komme igang næste søndag.

KH, Michael. 

“If there is no continuity what is there? There is nothing. One is afraid to be nothing. Nothing means not a thing - nothing put together by thought, nothing put together by memory, remembrances, nothing that you can put into words and then measure. There is most certainly, definitely, an area where the past doesn't cast a shadow, where time, the past or the future or the present, has no meaning. We have always tried to measure with words something that we don't know. What we do not know we try to understand and give it words and make it into a continuous noise. And so we clog our brain which is already clogged with past events, experiences, knowledge. We think knowledge is psychologically of great importance, but it is not. You can't ascend through knowledge; there must be an end to knowledge for the new to be. New is a word for something which has never been before. And that area cannot be understood or grasped by words or symbols: it is there beyond all remembrances.” 

The Last Journal

Thought is the result of the past acting in the present; the past is constantly sweeping over the present. The present, the new, is ever being absorbed by the past, by the known. To live in the eternal present there must be death to the past, to memory; in this death there is timeless renewal.

Ojai 1945, Talk 10 

‘But what part does .. the timeless .. play in life?’

If life is thought, then none at all. We want to gain the timeless as a source of peace and happiness, as a shield against all trouble, or as a means of uniting people. It cannot be used for any purpose. Purpose implies a means to an end, and so we are back again with the process of thought. Mind cannot formulate the timeless, shape it to its own end; it cannot be used. Life has meaning only when the timeless is; otherwise life is sorrow, conflict and pain. Thought cannot solve any human problem, for thought itself is the problem. The ending of knowledge is the beginning of wisdom. Wisdom is not of time; it is not the continuation of experience, knowledge. Life in time is confusion and misery; but when that which is is timeless, there is bliss.

From Commentaries on Living 1

Fandt lige et citat mere - Henrik

From Public Talk 9, Saanen, 28 July 1966

A man who is living fully and clearly is not concerned whether it will continue tomorrow. There is no concern; he is living and therefore he is not looking to a future continuity. That is very important to understand: any form of continuity, except as knowledge and skill, is totally destructive to the new. What continues is habit, memory, the repetition of a pattern of pleasure, pain and desire. The repetition of any habit or pattern cannot bring about a state of mind that is totally new, young, decisive, alive, which is not burdened by the past.

Søndag 25. juni kl.10

Dialogen tager udgangspunkt i nedenstående 

Relationer er essentiel for en sund og stærk udvikling som menneske. Vi har brug for at spejle os i hinanden for at lære os selv bedre at kende. Hvad sker der i bevidstheden, når vi reagerer i kommunikationen med andre ? Hvordan opstår disse reaktioner ? Er det et problem for os ? Hvis det er et problem, kan man være i en relation med andre uden at falde ind i gamle reaktionsmønstre ?

Med venlig hilsen

Michael M. Sorribes 

Søndag 18. juni kl.10

Dialogen tager udgangspunkt i nedenstående video

Søndag 11. juni kl.10

Åben dialog - en samtale om det der ligger os på sinde lige nu.

Søndag 4. juni kl.10

Vi ser en af de to korte videoer inden Dialogen

Noget om egoet, selvet, jeget og miget.

The source or origin of disorder is the self-centred, egotistic attitude towards the world - me first and you second, our colossal selfishness.

Public Talk 1 in New York, 20 April 1974

Passion means the complete abandonment of the ‘me’, of the self, the ego.

from Dialogue 9 with Allan W. Anderson in San Diego, California, 22 February 1974

To find out whether the brain can operate completely, wholly, all the senses must operate at the same moment, at the same level, with the same intensity. Then you will find with the total movement of all the senses, there is no centre. It is only when partial sensory responses take place that there is a centre. That is the beginning of the ego, the ‘me’, the self

Public Talk 2 in New Delhi, 1 November 1981

Hej Henrik - et meget relevant quote for søndag's dialog (hilsen Michael Henriques)

There is learning of the movement of the self only when there is a conflict. When you are happy, you are not watching anything; you are just happy. It is only in unhappiness that you become aware of yourself. Pain, distress, guilt, agony, tears, ambition, fear, all that, are an indication of self-consciousness. If you discover that, you have solved a great deal. Self-consciousness is the source of all conflict. To end conflict, can the mind be free from this mechanism of self-centred images? Me first and my ambition, my knowledge, my way of thinking, my furniture, my house, the me that is afraid of my loneliness, the me that says, ‘I am not loved, I must be loved,’ ‘I must fulfil’ – all that is self-consciousness, and all that breeds fear and conflict. So realising that, the mind doesn’t enter into that field at all.

From Discussion with Young People, Malibu, 14 April 1970

Søndag 28. maj kl.10

We talked about continuing the dialogue about 'choiceless awareness'. Here are some quotes to use as a starting point.

Look at the content of your consciousness without direction, without choice. Be aware of it without any exertion of discernment. Be choicelessly aware of this extraordinary map. Then that choiceless awareness gives you tremendous energy to go beyond it.
From Dialogue 14 with Allan W. Anderson in San Diego, California, 26 February 1974

When the mind perceives its content, becomes choicelessly aware of the content of consciousness and ends it totally, that is, transforms itself completely, dies to everything that it has cultivated or held on to, then there is an incarnation now and a new change now.
Public Talk 3 in New York, 27 April 1974

To understand sorrow, there must be the understanding of time and thought, and becoming choicelessly aware of all the escapes, the self-restrained self-pity, all the verbalisations, so that the mind, in understanding all this, becomes completely quiet in front of something it has to understand. There is no division between the observer and the thing observed. It is not you as the observer looking at sorrow or feeling sorrow; there is only the state of sorrow, not you in sorrow.
From Public Talk 8, Saanen, 28 July 1964

Rasmus

Søndag 21. maj kl.10

Vi ser hver for sig nedenstående foredrag for så at tale om hvad vi finder interessant

The Challenge of Choiceless Awareness
David Moody

(klik på linket, så kommer du til videoen.)

What does it mean to live in truth and actuality? 

Nordic Retreat At the Krishnamurti Centre, Brockwood Park England

From Thursday 4th May to Monday 8th May 2023

Dialogerne vil være på engelsk, men mange deltagere vil være fra et af de nordiske lande.

Booking:

The Krishnamurti Centre • Study the Teachings of J. Krishnamurti

 the folder for our programme.

Everything that thought has put together is reality, the actual. The temple is the actual – you go there – the church is the actual, the mosque, and so on – all those are put together by thought. But nature, the tree, the mountains, rivers, are not put together by thought. But the chair, made out of the wood, is put together by thought. And all the illusions, the superstitions are actual, therefore put together by thought. So everything that thought has put together – tradition, the rituals, the technological knowledge, the whole apparatus of the movement of thought, which has created this world, this confusion, is a reality. And reality has nothing whatsoever to do with truth. You understand, sirs, this is really a very important, rather serious question, because we all talk about seeking truth, experiments in truth, searching for truth.

What is the relationship between reality and truth? Reality, which is the movement of thought, can it invite truth or can it perceive truth? Obviously thought is fragmentary, thought is limited, thought is a material process in time. So thought cannot possibly invite truth. It is only a mind that is holistic – we explained what we mean by the word ‘holistic’, a mind that is sane, which means rational, objective, non-personal, that can see what exactly is, and a healthy body, naturally, and a mind that is holy – that is holistic – it’s is only a holistic mind that can see what truth is. Not, thought can see what truth is.

Both extracts from J. Krishnamurti - Fourth Public Talk in Bombay - 16 January 197

Extract on Dialogue

To communicate with one another, even if we know each other very well, is extremely difficult. I may use words that may have to you a significance different from mine. Understanding comes when we, you and I, meet on the same level at the same time. That happens only when there is real affection between people, between husband and wife, between friends. That is real communion. Instantaneous understanding comes when we meet on the same level at the same time. It is very difficult to commune with one another easily, effectively and with definitive action. I am using words which are simple, which are not technical, because I do not think that any technical type of expression is going to help us solve our difficult problems; so I am not going to use any technical terms, either of psychology or of science. I have not read any books on psychology or any religious books, fortunately. I would like to convey, by the very simple words which we use in our daily life, a deeper significance; but that is very difficult if you do not know how to listen. There is an art of listening. To be able really to listen, one should abandon or put aside all prejudices, preformulations and daily activities. When you are in a receptive state of mind, things can be easily understood; you are listening when your real attention is given to something. But unfortunately most of us listen through a screen of resistance. We are screened with prejudices, whether religious or spiritual, psychological or scientific; or with our daily worries, desires and fears. And with these for a screen, we listen. Therefore we listen really to our own noise, to our own sound, not to what is being said. It is extremely difficult to put aside our training, our prejudices, our inclination, our resistance, and, reaching beyond the verbal expression, to listen so that we understand instantaneously. That is going to be one of our difficulties. If anything is said which is opposed to your way of thinking and belief just listen; do not resist. You may be right, and I may be wrong; but by listening and considering together we are going to find out what is the truth. Truth cannot be given to you by somebody. You have to discover it; and to discover, there must be a state of mind in which there is direct perception. There is no direct perception when there is a resistance, a safeguard, a protection. Understanding comes through being aware of what is. To know exactly what is, the real, the actual, without interpreting it, without condemning or justifying it, is the beginning of wisdom. It is only when we begin to interpret, to translate according to our conditioning, according to our prejudice, that we miss the truth. After all, it is like research. To know what something is, what it is exactly, requires research – you cannot translate it according to your moods. Similarly, if we can look, observe, listen, be aware of what is, exactly, then the problem is solved. And that is what we are going to do in these discourses. I am going to point out to you what is, and not translate it according to my fancy; nor should you translate it or interpret it according to your background or training.

From The First and Last Freedom, Chapter 1

On listening with ease

Have you ever sat very silently, not with your attention fixed on anything, not making an effort to concentrate, but with the mind very quiet, really still? Then you hear everything, don’t you? You hear the far off noises as well as those that are nearer and those that are very close by, the immediate sounds—which means really that you are listening to everything. Your mind is not confined to one narrow little channel. If you can listen in this way, listen with ease, without strain, you will find an extraordinary change taking place within you, a change which comes without your volition, without your asking; and in that change there is great beauty and depth of insight.

From The Book of Life

On communication and communion

There is, I think, a great deal of difference between communication and communion. In communication there is a sharing of ideas through words, pleasant or unpleasant, through symbols, through gestures; and ideas can be translated ideologically, or interpreted according to one's own peculiarities, idiosyncrasies and background. But in communion I think there is something quite different taking place. In communion there is no sharing or interpretation of ideas. You may or may not be communicating through words, but you are directly in relationship with that which you are observing; and you are communing with your own mind, with your own heart. One may commune with a tree, for example, or with a mountain, or a river. I do not know if you have ever sat beneath a tree and really tried to commune with it. It is not sentimentality, it is not emotionalism: you are directly in contact with the tree. There is an extraordinary intimacy of relationship. In such communion there must be silence, there must be a deep sense of quietness; your nerves, your body are at rest; the heart itself almost comes to a stop. There is no interpretation, there is no communication, no sharing. The tree is not you, nor are you identified with the tree: there is only this sense of intimacy in a great depth of silence. I do not know if you have ever tried it. Try it sometime - when your mind is not chattering, not wandering all over the place, when you are not soliloquizing, when you are not remembering the things that have been done or that must be done. Forgetting all that, just try communing with a mountain, with a stream, with a person, with a tree, with the very movement of life. That demands an astonishing sense of stillness, and a peculiar attention - not concentration, but an attention which comes with ease, with pleasure.

From 3rd Public Talk in Saanen, 1964

Daily Schedule

Thursday 4 May 2023

Afternoon Arrival

6.30PM Supper

8.00PM Introduction

Meeting Friday 5 May 2023

8.00AM Breakfast

9.30AM Audio: BRGS75CB1 - Brockwood Park and Gstaad 1975 - Dialogue 1 with David Bohm - What is truth and what is reality? (70 minutes)

11.30AM Dialogue 1

1.00PM Lunch

5.00PM Video extract: Truth cannot be experienced (7 minutes)) Dialogue 2

6.30PM Supper

Saturday 6 May 2023

8.00AM Breakfast

9.30AM  Video: BR83CB2 - Brockwood Park 1983 - Dialogue 2 with David Bohm - Is there evolution of consciousness? (66 minutes)

11.30AM Dialogue 3

1.00PM Lunch

5.00PM Meeting with Mark Edwards

6.30PM Supper

Sunday 7 May 2023

8.00AM Breakfast

9.30AM Video: BR76CTM7 - Brockwood Park 1976 - Small Group Dialogue 7 - Life is sacred? (57 minutes)

11.30AM Dialogue 4

1.00PM Lunch

5.00PM Video: OJBR80CB15 - Brockwood Park 1980 - Dialogue 15 with David Bohm - Can human problems be solved? (73 minutes)

6.30PM Supper

Monday 8 May 2023

8.00AM Breakfast

Departure

J Krishnamurti Extract from Talk 6, Poona, India 3 October 1948

Has truth an abiding place? Has truth a fixed point? Has truth an abode, or is truth a dynamic, living thing, and therefore without a resting place? Truth is in constant movement; but if you say it is a fixed point, then you will have to find a guru who will lead you to it, and the guru becomes necessary as a pointer. That means that both you and the guru must know that truth is there, in a fixed place, like the station. Then you can ask the way, then you can approach the fixed point; and in order to achieve that, you need a guru who will direct and lead you to that fixed thing. But is truth a fixed thing? And if it is fixed, is it true? Also, if you want truth and you go to a guru, you must know what truth is, must you not? When you go to a guru you do not say, `I want to discover reality', on the contrary, you say, `Help me to realize truth'. Therefore, you already have an idea of what it is, you already know its content, its beauty, its loveliness, its fragrance. Do you know what it is? How can a confused man know clarity? He can only know confusion, or think of clarity as the opposite of what is. Is truth the opposite of what is, the opposite of confusion? If you think about truth, surely it is the product of thought, and therefore it is not true; and if the guru can tell you what it is, then he is still within the field of thought, therefore what he tells you is not true. So, when you go to the guru, obviously you are going for gratification, are you not? - even though you may not like that word. You have tried several things, you have tried position, women, money, and they do not satisfy you, they do not give an assured pleasure, a guaranteed permanency; so you say, `I will find God'. That is, you think reality will give you the ultimate peace, the ultimate satisfaction, the ultimate security. You would like truth to be all this; but it may be the most dangerous, devastating thing, it may destroy all your previous values. You are really seeking security, gratification, but you do not call it that - you cover it up by calling it God. Having tried many obvious forms of gratification and grown old, disillusioned, cynical, frustrated, you hope to find fulfilment or satisfaction in God. So, you go to the guru who will give you this satisfaction, and the more he assures you of that satisfaction, the more you worship him. In other words, when you go to the guru, you are not seeking the truth, you are seeking security at a different level, permanency at a different point. But is truth permanency? You do not know, do you? But you dare not say that, because to acknowledge, not merely verbally but actually, that one does not know, is a very devastating experience. But surely, you must be devastated before you can find truth; you must be in that state of uncertainty, complete frustration, without escape; you must be confronted with the void, the emptiness, without an avenue through which you can run away. Then only you will find what is truth. But to speculate, to think about truth, is to deny truth. Your speculations, your thoughts about truth, have no validity: What you think is the product of thought, and thought is memory; and memory is mere identification of oneself with a desired result. So, for the man who is seeking truth, a guru is entirely unnecessary. Truth is not in the distance; truth is near, in what you are thinking and feeling, in your relationship with your family, with your neighbour, with your property and with ideas. To discover truth in some abstract realm is mere ideation, and most of us seek truth this way as a means of escape from life. Life is too much for us, too taxing, too painful, so we want truth away from life Therefore we seek a guru who will help us to escape; and the more he helps us to escape, the more we are attached to that guru. 8 The questioner asks me, `Are you not yourself a guru?' You can make me one, but I am not a guru. I do not want to be one for the simple reason that there is no path to truth. You cannot discover the path, because there is no path, Truth is a thing that is living, and to a living thing there is no path - it is only, to dead things that there can be a path. Truth being pathless, to discover it you must be adventurous, ready for danger; and do you think a guru will help you to be adventurous, to live in danger? To seek a guru obviously indicates that you are not adventurous, that you are merely seeking a path to reality as a means of security. So, you can make me into a guru if you wish, but it will be your misery, because there is no guru to truth, there is no leader to reality. That reality is an eternal being in the present, not in the future; it is in the immediate now, not in the ultimate tomorrow. To understand that now, that eternity, the mind must be free from time, thought must cease; yet everything that you are doing now is cultivating that thought, thereby conditioning the mind so that there is never a freshness, a newness, there is never a moment that is still, quiet, as long as the thought process exists, truth cannot be - which does not mean that you must be in a state of complete forgetfulness. You cannot enforce stillness, you cannot make the mind still, you cannot force thought to stop. You must understand the process of thought and go beyond all thought; only then will truth liberate thought from its own process. So, truth is not for those who are respectable, nor for those who desire self-extension, selffulfilment. Truth is not for those who are seeking security, permanency; for the permanency they seek is merely the opposite of impermanence. Being caught in the net of time, they seek that which is permanent; but the permanent they seek is not the real, because what they seek is the product of their thought. Therefore, a man who would discover reality must cease to seek - which does not mean that he must be contented with what is. On the contrary, a man who is intent upon the discovery of truth must be inwardly a complete revolutionary. He cannot belong to any class, to any nation, to any group or ideology, to any organized religion; for truth is not in the temple or the church, truth is not to be found in the things made by the hand or by the mind. Truth comes into being only when the things of the mind and of the hand are put aside, and that putting aside of the things of the mind and of the hand is not a matter of time. Truth comes to him who is free of time, who is not using time as a means of self-extension. Time means memory of yesterday, memory of your family, of your race, of your particular character, of the accumulation of your experience which makes up the `me' and the `mine'. As long as the ego exists, the `me' and the `mine', at whatever level it may be, high or low, the Atman or not Atman, it is still within the field of thought. Where thought is, there is the opposite, because thought creates the opposite; and as long as the opposite exists, there cannot be truth. To understand what is, there must be no condemning, no justifying, no blaming; and since our whole structure of being is built upon denial and acceptance, one must become aware of that whole background, Just be aware as I am speaking; for choiceless awareness reveals the truth, and it is the truth that liberates, not your gurus or your systems, not all the pujas and rituals and practices. Through time, through discipline, through denial and acceptance, you cannot find truth, Truth comes into being when the mind is utterly and completely still, and that stillness is not made up, put together; that stillness arises only when there is understanding; and this understanding is not difficult, only it demands your whole attention. Attention is denied when you are merely living in the brain, and not with your whole being.

All texts copyright © Krishnamurti Foundation of America and/or Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Lt

Søndag 30.april kl.10

Vi tager udgangspunkt i nedenstående

I would like to propose this for talking about this questions i have, and if you and all agree, more than reading Krishnamurti, it is more about our own "thinking" :)

Anyway, i share here the text i used to extract some ideas of Krishnamurti for my questions,https://www.jkrishnamurti.org/content/art-listening-seeing-learning-and-living.

--------

I ask these questions knowing that it is my conditioning that is speaking. In our group we use language to communicate, to me, our 'understanding' of Krishnamurti's lectures or talks. So I have a few comments I'd like to make, so maybe we can discuss our "intent," if any, when we set up the meetings.

- Krishnamurti said: The speaker says, 'For god's sake let's think together... But you say, 'Sorry I want my opinions... ...I like my opinions, I cannot let go my experiences, my pleasures.' … So our minds, not your mind is different from mine... ...there is only one mind when we are together - you understand this?
- He also said: to think together does not imply … agreement or disagreement, but putting aside one’s own particular point of view,; particular conclusions; vanity, personal demands, seek of something….. then arises the desire to fulfil, and inevitable sequence of that is frustration with all its neurosis and all the inevitable reactions.
- My question is:: do we need to -agree on what means- “Let's think together” for our meetings?

- He also said:….and having the capacity thus to think together… requires a effort, needs verbal communication, .. The word ‘together’ means walking together,.. not translating what you observed in your own particular inclination or prejudice,.. but observing together, listening together, walking together.
- My second question is: If we need verbal communication, but it is a "trap" of the conditioned mind, then is personal work on Krishnamurti's "teachings" better than "talking" among ourselves about it?

- Krishamurti identifies some problems: fear, search of pleasure (with its innumerable forms), and so on
- My last question is: -If our mind or conditioning can identify -with or through- thought the problems (the ones mentioned above), the identification we make of our own problems is not a starting point, a "signal", a "tool" to try to solve. "notice". ” the “circle of our mind”? That is, if I identify a problem related to fear, and there are thoughts and actions that lead me there, the identification of those patterns, without the change or the repression, but only the identification, yes in my conditioned mind, can be a point starting point or tool for the correct action?

----

Best regards

Laura :)

Søndag 23.april kl.10

When you are a light to yourself you are a light to the world

Se denne video, som jeg finder uhyre interessant, så tager vi dialogen derfra.

Med venlig hilsen

Michael M. Sorribes

Søndag 16.april kl.10

What Is Consciousness?

The plan is to start with an introduction as a preliminary enquiry into Krishnamurti's understanding of consciousness based to the three quotations below:

Your consciousness is my consciousness. The content of your consciousness is my content. You are caught in the stream of consciousness with its content. As long as you are flowing in that current of consciousness, it will go on, and you will be like the rest of the world. To totally step out of that consciousness is what is demanded, not just to conform and follow the flow of bourgeois life or the life of conflict and misery. If you like that kind of life, it will go on. But it is not your life, it is the life of everybody, your neighbour, your sister or brother, your husband or wife, your ministers, because they are all ambitious, greedy, corrupt, frightened, and they will go on. For the one who totally steps out of that current, there is freedom of death.

Jiddu krishnamurti, Public Talk 3 in New Delhi, 18 November 1972

Our brain is the result of time, evolution. Our brain is not your brain and my brain, but the brain of mankind. This is difficult for you to see, and even recognize, because we have been so conditioned that it is my brain. And it is your brain. But if you observe, human beings right throughout the world go through enormous turmoil, poverty, anxiety, insecurity, confusion, psychologically wounded, fear, fear of being hurt, physically, fear of psychological hurts, fear of death, and the enquiry, what is there beyond…

That is the content of our consciousness. And as long as there’s that content, which is always divisive, which is always fragmented, our action must be fragmented. Right?

So the problem then is: is it possible for the content of that consciousness to be dissolved?

Jiddu krishnamurti, 2nd Public Talk in Ojai, May 1980

Now is it possible to observe our consciousness, not at two broken levels, but totally? You understand my question? Can I observe my consciousness, not as the unconscious and the conscious but as a total unit, not divided, but a thing that is intrinsically whole? Right? Is it possible to so observe? You understand my question? It is only possible when I understand very clearly that this division is artificial, perhaps convenient and perhaps it might explain certain neurotic activities, but actually it is totally brought about by man, by thought.

Jiddu krishnamurti, Public Talk 6 Saanen, Switzerland - 20 July 1978

--

Med venlig hilsen/best regards

Peter

Søndag 9.april kl.10

Dialog om samfundsforandringer med udgangspunkt i nedenstående citater

Now, will that religious man, who is discovering from moment to moment, be occupied with social reform? Or will he remain outside of society and help the individual who is caught in its ceaseless struggle? Surely, the truly religious man is outside of society because for him there is no authority. He is not seeking a result; therefore, results happen in spite of him, and such a man is not concerned with social reform.

"The individual is the little conditioned, miserable, frustrated entity, satisfied with his little gods and his little traditions, whereas a human being is concerned with the total welfare, the total misery and total confusion of the world."

“We human beings are what we have been for millions of years — colossally greedy, envious, aggressive, jealous, anxious and despairing, with occasional flashes of joy and affection. We are a strange mixture of hate, fear and gentleness; we are both violence and peace. There has been outward progress from the bullock cart to the jet plane but psychologically the individual has not changed at all, and the structure of society throughout the world has been created by individuals. The outward social structure is the result of the inward psychological structure of our human relationships, for the individual is the result of the total experience, knowledge and conduct of man.”

“What is crucial to bringing peace to the world is your daily behavior.”

"It is the happy man, not the idealist or the miserable escapee, who is revolutionary; and the happy man is not he who has many possessions. The happy man is the truly religious man, and his very living is social work. But if you become merely one of the innumerable social workers, your heart will be empty. You may give away your money, or persuade other people to contribute theirs, and you may bring about marvellous reforms; but as long as your heart is empty and your mind full of theories, your life will be dull, weary, without joy. So, first understand yourself, and out of that self-knowledge will come action of the right kind.”

Søndag 2.april kl.10

Roden til frygt

Dialog med udgangspunkt i videoen The Root of Fear.

Har du nogensinde spekuleret over hvad roden til frygt er?

"Hvad er roden til frygt, det er det vi spørger om, ikke en særlig frygt men roden til al frygt. Roden til frygt er tid: hvad jeg vil være, hvad jeg har været, hvad jeg måske ikke er. Tid er fortid, nutid og fremtid. Fortiden modificerer sig selv i nutiden og fortsætter i fremtiden. Frygt er frygten for at noget ubehageligt der skete sidste uge eller sidste år, psykisk eller fysisk, vil gentage sig eller fortsætte i fremtiden. Så tid er en frygtfaktor. Den fattige som frygter ikke at kunne finde det næste måltid. I kender ikke til alt det. Frygten for ikke at have et hjem, et husly, mad. Og så er der effekten af frygt, både på den fysiske organisme, og på det psykologiske, på psyken; og selve psyken består måske af frygt. Vær venlig at forstå det.

Psyken, det du er, kan være et resultat af frygt. Og sandsynligvis er den det. Så det er vigtigt at forstå dybden og betydningen af frygt. Og det er tid og tanke. Tid som fremtid, jeg kan dø, jeg kan miste, jeg kan være ikke-noget, jeg er noget nu - hvilket jeg tvivler på -men jeg vil gerne være noget i fremtiden, og så videre Så tid og tanke er roden til frygt. Og derfor må man stille et meget mere seriøst spørgsmål: om tiden og tanken har et stop."

J. Krishnamurti Tale 2, New York, 1983.

søndag 26. marts kl. 10.00 

Frihed fra det kendte

- klik på ovenstående link for at deltage i dialogen

From Public Talk 7, Madras, 13 December 1961

When there is the complete ending of everything one has known, then only, being free from the known, can you enter into the unknown. You don’t have to enter; it comes to you. Your mind then, being free of the known, understands the unknowable.

 “Contradiction arises only when the mind has a fixed point of desire; that is when the mind does not regard all desire as moving, transient, but seizes upon one desire and makes that into a permanency – only then, when other desires arise, is there contradiction. Quietness of mind is essential to understand the whole significance of life.”

So long as thought, which is the product of the past, tries to eliminate contradiction and all the problems that it creates, it is merely pursuing a result, trying to achieve an end, and such thinking only creates more contradiction and hence conflict, misery and confusion in us and, therefore, about us.

“To be free of contradiction, one must be aware of the present without choice. To be fully aware of the present is an extraordinarily difficult task because the mind is incapable of facing a fact directly without deception.”

“Thus, so long as there is a pattern of thought, contradiction will continue; to put an end to the pattern, and so to contradiction, there must be self-knowledge. If we can be aware of every thought, of every feeling, from moment to moment, then we shall see that in relationship the ways of the self are understood. Then only is there a possibility of that tranquillity of mind in which alone the ultimate reality can come into being.

Mvh 

Jonas 

The Immeasurable Podcast:What Is Dialogue? | Part 1

søndag 19. marts kl. 10.00 

Vi tager udgangspunkt i nedenstående tekst

- klik på ovenstående link for at deltage.

Hej Henrik - her er en forkortet udgave af de udvalgte quotes … 😁🤔

Malibu 1970

To live in the present is one of the most complex things. It is not just away from the past; you have to understand the whole nature of the past, which is you … 

...  What prevents us from seeing the whole movement of this? - my attachments, my prejudices, my beliefs, my experience, my desires, contradictory, conflict, misery, confusion - you follow? - the whole of that ...

… So are you using thought to see the whole? And you know at the same time thought is a fragmentary affair, so through the fragment you hope to see the whole - is that it? So you don’t realise actually that thought is a fragment. By putting many fragments together, which thought does, which it calls integration, and hoping thereby to see the whole, it can't. So do we realise that thought cannot see the whole?...

… Are you aware, if I may ask that question most politely, without any disrespect, are you aware that you are conditioned? Are you? Totally conditioned, not partially conditioned. Your words condition you - right? - education conditions you, culture conditions you, the environment conditions you, propaganda of two thousand years or five thousand years of priests have conditioned you. So you are conditioned right through. When you say, ‘I believe in god', that is part of your conditioning - like the man who says, 'I don't believe in god'.

So do we realise that this is a fact: a total conditioning? Then when you realise it what takes place? Do you then say, 'I must uncondition it'? You follow? Then who is the 'I' - and that 'I' is part of your conditioning. So what do you do? 

…  thought is a fragment, therefore it is limited. It is fragmentary because it is based on knowledge, experience and memory, which is the movement of time. Right? So thought, whatever is caught in the movement of time,  is limited. That’s obvious .... And we think through thought we will see the totality. That is our difficulty. We don't say, thought cannot see the totality, therefore thought becomes quiet. 

…  As we said the other day, when you look at a map you see the totality of the whole map - right? - various countries, the colours, the hills, see the totality. But if you have a direction you don’t see the totality. That is, if you want to go from here to Vienna you have the line, you see that, and you disregard the rest … as long as you have a direction, a motive, a purpose, then you cannot see the totality.

SUMMARY:

CONDITIONING =THOUGHT = FRAGMENT = TIME = ME

2023 Mürren International Gathering

around the work of

J. KRISHNAMURTI

Saturday 24 June – Saturday 8 July

Please note earlier dates, necessary to keep costs down

Mürren (alt. 1650m), above Lauterbrunnen Valley

near Interlaken, Switzerland

Mürren is a car-free mountain village with beautiful walks

overlooking the Eiger, Mönch and Jungfrau

The gathering takes place at hotel Sportchalet

Join for one or two weeks

If you require a shorter stay, please book other accomodation in Mürren

You will still share all activities and meals in Sportchalet

Information:  Claire Dufour  –  claratolo@gmail.com

Themes and full programme available beginning of 2023

“The important thing is to discover, and after discovering, to keep going.”

ACTIVITIES

Viewing and reflecting on selected talks of J. Krishnamurti

Questioning and participating in dialogues

Gentle exercises proposed by participants

Hiking in beautiful mountains

Free time

An atmosphere of friendliness, seriousness and silence

contributes to the quality of inquiry.

There is no authority and no goal to reach.

CHF 600* per person per week, with shared bathrooms on each floor

Full board (light lunch). Free entrance to the SportCentre swimming pool

* Plus CHF 100 per week for the overall organisation, due also from those staying elsewhere

~ Please book with Claire by end-March 2023 ~

Check ch.ch (5 languages) for requirements on entering Switzerland

We recommend you have a European Health Insurance Card or travel insurance

Mürren or Mürren BLM stations can be reached by cableway and train only

For schedules, go to sbb.ch (4 languages)

Sportchalet Mürren is a few minutes’ walk between the two stations

søndag 12. marts kl. 10.00 

Om at iagttage frygt

- klik på ovenstående link for at deltage.

• “When you are free of fear there is the strong feeling of being good, of thinking very clearly, of looking at stars, of looking at clouds, of looking at faces with a smile. And when there is no fear, you can go much further. Then you can find out for yourself that for which man has searched generation upon generation.”
  Part One `On Education'
  
  “To go into this question of fear one has to be aware, that is, one has to watch one's own fear, not the fear that one is told about or the fear of the unknown, but the actual fear that one has. Fear does not exist by itself; it is not an isolated factor, it exists in relation to something.“
  1968 Rome 1st Public Talk 10th March 1968

  
  

   "Analysis is merely a description of what is, and we are not analysing but just observing. It is very important to understand this, the art of looking, the art of seeing. We are seeing fear, listening to fear, to all its murmurs, not theoretically but actually. If we could see fear with eyes that are very clear then fear would completely come to an end. And that's what we are doing." 
  Rome 1st Public Talk 10th March 1968

  
  

   "Can the mind see the totality of fear and not merely the different forms of fear? Now how is it possible to see the totality of fear as well as these different aspects of it - the central structure and nature of fear and also its fragmentation, such as the fear of the dark, the fear of walking alone, the fear of the wife or the husband, or losing the job? If I could understand the central nature of fear then I should be able to examine all the details, but if I merely look at the details then I shall never come to the central issue.
  Saanen 1st Public Talk 9th July 1967

  
  

  "When one discards, or puts an end to, or stops, time, then there is only the fact of fear - therefore there is no escape from fear, there is no controlling, there is no sublimating - it is so. When that is a fact, then it undergoes a tremendous change. That is, when there is no longer the observer - the entity that says, `I am afraid', `I' being separate from the fear - then, is there fear at all?"
  1st Public Talk Paris 16th April 1967

Torsdag 2. marts kl. 19.00 

Video og dialog: Krishnamurti Komitéen c/o Thorsgade 85, 1.tv

Krishnamurti: With a silent mind

Denne dokumentar er baseret på interviews med folk der havde været i kontakt med Krishnamurti. Vi ser den første halve time eller sådan og snakker om den.

Kh. Henrik

Søndag 26. februar kl.10.00

Dialogen tager afsæt i nedenstående tekst. (klik på linket)

Mvh Peter

Without self-knowledge there cannot be complete action

Knowing ourselves implies self-observation at every moment of the day, in our relationships, in our speech, in our actions, in our gestures; it implies being fully aware of ourselves.

• Krishnamurti

Most of us know very little about ourselves at the greater depths of consciousness.

• Krishnamurti 

Søndag 19. februar kl.10.00

Dialogen tager afsæt i nedenstående video

Søndag 12. februar kl.10.00

Dialogen tager afsæt i nedenstående video

Description

Thought is responsible for our confusion | J. Krishnamurti

Extract from Public Talk 4, Madras, India, 1981

Mvh Peter

“All thinking is a reaction, a response of memory. Thought can never bring about freedom because freedom is not a response or a result. Freedom is not the rejection of the things we know or the things that give us pain or the attachment to something which gives us pleasure and to which we have become slaves. The whole structure of our consciousness, of our thought, is the residue, the reservoir of reactions. Revolution and revolt are essentially reactions”

From Public Talk 3 in Saanen, 11 July 1963

Søndag 5. februar kl.10.00

Dialogen tager afsæt i disse 2 korte videoer

Søndag 29. januar kl.10.00

Dialogen tager udgangspunkt i nedenstående tekst

Den globale udfordring kalder på en ny bevidsthed

Fra forordet til Krishnamurti-bogen Facing A World In Crisis.

af Henrik Petersen

Søndag 15. januar kl.10.00

Dialogen tager udgangspunkt i nedenstående video

“Psychologically we have created walls around ourselves, walls of resistance, walls of hope, fear, greed, envy, ambition, desire for position, power, prestige. They are created by the thinker. The thinker has created the space around himself in which he lives, and there he is never free. Beauty is not only the thing that you see; that’s a very small part. Beauty is not the result of thought, is not put together by thought. Like love, thought has no place where affection is. Where there is jealousy, envy, greed, ambition, and pride—love is not. We all know that. But, to find out what it means to love, there must surely be freedom from all travail, all jealousy, all envy. Then we will know.

In the same way, to be free implies no psychological walls created by the center. Freedom means space. Freedom also implies an end to time, not abstractly but actually. Freedom means to live completely today because we have understood the whole structure, the nature, and the meaning of the past. The past is the conscious as well as the unconscious. We have understood the whole of that. Because of that understanding, there is the active present, which is living. Can this actually happen in our daily life?”

J. Krishnamurti
Talk 5, Paris, 1966

The Immeasurable

for andre internationale arrangementer