Folk der er interesseret i at udforske sig selv og lytte til hvad Krishnamurti har at sige er velkomne til at deltage i vores dialoger. Næste dialog er søndag 9. oktober kl. 10.00
Et link er aktivt en halv time før mødet.
Vi læser og tager afsæt i nedenstående tekst, som som er at finde i Foundation Focus (Summer/Fall 2022 - pp.2-3) - et nyhedsbrev fra Krishnamurti Foundation of America
Af Henry Fischer
I had the fortune of spending an extended period of time at the Krishnamurti Center in Ojai from January to June this year to help produce the May Gathering and assist with various projects for the Foundation. On my very first day back on the Center grounds, I asked myself what the intention of having a physical Krishnamurti Center really is. An increasing amount of the Foundation’s work is conducted online where people can access Krishnamurti’s talks, written word, and modern media presentations like The Immeasurable. There are online dialogues, programs, and courses. So what does a physical center, have to offer us? And more importantly, what do we have to offer the Center?
After strolling for a few minutes throughout the orange grove, a thought (or was it an insight) arose: “Can the very structures, nature, environment, and community at the Center be a reflection of attention?” As Krishnamurti once said, “Attention is the flame in which sorrow ends.” Do we all have a part to play in making the Krishnamurti Center in Ojai a place with this quality? Do the plants, animals, buildings, and air reflect and respond to our quality of attention?
What does it mean to reflect attention in our lives and does that attention become part of the environment we inhabit? Can a place reflect and inspire this quality in others? In fact, is this the purpose of a study center that Krishnamurti spoke of? For in order to look at oneself, as Krishnamurti said, attention and sensitivity are necessary:
It is essential sometimes to go to retreat, to stop everything that you have been doing, to stop your beliefs and experiences completely, and look at them anew, not keep on repeating like machines whether you believe or do not believe. You would then let in fresh air into your minds.
Do the grounds contain the perfume of this retreat, of this stopping, of this looking, and ultimately of attention? Going further, when this attention and sensitivity are the operations of perception, do we begin to knock at the door of inward revolution? For we cannot simply be on the grounds of the Center to get something for ourselves, nor to give something of ourselves, we need to enter another dimension where the imperatives of existence have changed. Can we be curious enough to discover something new together?
Are we engaged in creating a place of attention for all who are interested? Can we take a risk and explore the possibility that we may be able to relate in a new way to one another— a way that reflects attention and sensitivity without contrivance. As Krishnamurti said, “As long as a human being lives in the river of sorrow and does not end it, humanity will go on endlessly in that stream. But when there is an ending to that, there is a totally different dimension in which there is no beginning and no ending, and that is absolutely timeless.”
The Krishnamurti Center isn’t out there away from all of us, what it is and what it will be, is a direct reflection of what we are. Can it be a place of attention? And what is attention? Can we explore this together, and see if our answers, conclusions and psychological limitations are relics of a frightened past?
Henry Fischer began as a volunteer at the Krishnamurti Center in Ojai and continued as an independent contractor. He is now a trustee of the KFA and a member of various KFA committees.
From an Interview by Robert Lavine, Malibu, California, 24 February 1975
When I look at myself, I am looking at myself through the screen of thought. Thought, being fragmentary, is never whole. Thought creates the division between the observer and the observed, and so there is conflict. Wherever there is division, there must be conflict: the Arab and the Jew, the Hindu and the Muslim. So our whole life is based on conflict because it is based on thought. Can I look at myself without authority, without a conclusion, without an image, without the process of thought which divides the observer and the observed? Can the mind observe itself?
Saanen 1968 4th talk (uddrag)
Hele talen: https://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1968/1968-07-11-jiddu-krishnamurti-3rd
Can the mind put away all its conditioning so that it is actually, not verbally or theoretically or ideologically, but actually free, completely? That is the only challenge, that is the only issue, now or ever. If you also see the importance of that, then we can go into this question as to whether the mind can uncondition itself. Can we proceed from there? Is it possible? In this question several things are involved. First of all, who is the entity who is going to uncondition the conditioned mind? You understand? I want to uncondition myself, being born as a Hindu or brought up in a particular part of the world, with all the impressions, cultures, books, magazines, what people have said and what they have not, such constant pressure has shaped my mind. And I see it must be totally free. Now, how is it to be free? Is there an entity which is going to make it free? Man has said, there is an entity; they call it the Atman in India, the soul or the grace of God in the occident, or this or that, which, given an opportunity, will bring about this freedom. It is suggested that if I live rightly, if I do certain things, if I follow certain formulas, certain systems, certain beliefs, then I will be free. So, firstly it is posited that there is a superior outer form or agency, that will help me to be free, that will make the mind free if I do these things right? But `If you do these things' is a system, which is going to condition you and that is what has happened. The theologians and the theoreticians and the various religious people have said, `do these things, practice, meditate, control, force, suppress, follow, obey' then at the end, that outer agency will come and bring a certain miracle and you will be free; see how false that is, yet every religion believes in it in a different way. So, if you see the truth of that, that there is no outer agency, God what you will that is going to free the conditioned mind, then the whole organized religious structure, of priests with their rituals, with their mutterings of meaningless words, words, have no meaning any more. Then secondly, if you have actually discarded all that, how is it possible for this conditioning to be dissolved; who is the entity that is going to do it; you have discarded this outer agency, the sacred, the divine, all that, then there must be somebody who is going to dissolve it? Then who is that? the observer? the `I', the `me', which is the observer? Let us stick to that word, `observer; that is good enough. Is it the observer that is going to dissolve it? The observer says; `I must be free, therefore I must get rid of all this conditioning'. You have discarded the outer, divine agency, but you have created another agency which is the observer. Now, is the observer different from the thing which he observes? Please do follow this. You understand? We looked to an outer agency to free us, God, Saviours, Masters and so on, the gurus. If you discard that then you will see that you must also discard the observer, who is another form of an agency. The observer is the result of experience, of knowledge, of the desire to free himself from his own conditioning; he says, `I must be free'. The `I' is the observer. The `I' says, `I must be free'. But is the `I' different from the thing it observes? It says, `I am conditioned, I am a nationalist, I am a Catholic, I am this, I am that'. Is the `I' really different from the thing which he says is separate from him, which he says is his conditioning?
So, is the `observer', the `I' the `I' which says, `I am different from the thing I want to get rid of' is it really separate from the thing it observes? Right? Are there two separate entities, the observer different from the thing observed, or is there only one thing, the observed is the observer, and the observer is the observed? (Is this becoming too difficult?)
When you see the truth of that, that the observer is the observed, then there is no duality at all, therefore no conflict, (which, as we said, is a waste of energy). Then there is only the fact; the fact that the mind is conditioned; it is not that `I am conditioned and I am going to free myself from that conditioning'. So, when the mind sees the truth of that, then there is no duality, but only that a state of conditioning, a conditioned state, nothing else! Can we go on from there? So, do you see that, not as an idea, but actually; do you see actually that there is only conditioning, not `I' and the 'conditioning' as two different things, with the `I' exercising `will' to get rid of the `conditioning' hence conflict? When you see that the observer is the observed there is no conflict at all, you eliminate conflict altogether. So when the mind sees there is only a conditioned state, what then is going to happen? You have eliminated, altogether, the entity that is going to exercise power, discipline or will, in order to get rid of this conditioning, which means, essentially, that the mind has eliminated conflict altogether.
Now, have you done it? If you have not done it we cannot proceed any further. Look to put it much more simply when you see a tree there is the observer, the seer, and the thing seen. Between the observer and the thing observed there is space; between the entity that sees the tree and the tree, there is space. The observer looks at that tree and has various images or ideas about trees; through those innumerable images he looks at the tree. Can he eliminate those images botanical, aesthetic, and so on so that he looks at the tree without any image, without any ideas? Have you ever tried it? If you have not tried it, if you do not do it, you will not be able to go into this much more complex problem which we are investigating; that of the mind that has looked at everything as the `observer', as something different from the thing observed and therefore with a space, a distance, between himself as the `observer' and the thing `observed' as you have the space between the tree and yourself. If you can do it, that is, if you can look at a tree without any `image', without any knowledge, then the observer is the observed. That does not mean he becomes the tree which would be too silly but that the distance between the `observer' and the `observed' disappears. And that is not a kind of mystical, abstract or lovely state, or that you go into an ecstasy.
When the mind discards the outward agency divine or mystical or whatever it is (which is obviously an invention of a mind that has not been able to solve the problem of freeing itself from its own conditioning) when it discards that outward agency it invents another agency, the `I', the `me', the `observer' who says, `I am going to get rid of my conditioning'. But in fact there is only a mind that is in a conditioned state; not the duality of a mind that says, `I am conditioned, I must be free, I must exercise will over my conditioned state; there is only a mind conditioned. Do listen to this very carefully; you will see, if you really listen with attention, with your heart, with your mind, you will see what will happen. The mind is conditioned only! there is nothing else. All psychological inventions, permanent relationship, divinity, Gods, everything else are born out of this conditioned mind. There is only that and nothing else! Is that a fact to you? That is the question, it is really an extraordinarily important thing if you can come to it. Because, in the observation of that only, and nothing else, begins the sense of freedom which is the freedom from conflict.
Shall we discuss or have you had enough for this morning?
Questioner: Would you repeat the last sentence?
Krishnamurti: I said, I think, that if you see only that state, know it completely, being aware without any choice, that the mind is wholly conditioned, then you'll know, or begin to feel, or smell or taste. that extraordinary sense of freedom begin but you do not have it yet, do not run away with the smell of a perfume.
Questioner: If I say,`My mind is conditioned', then that `I' is also a conditioning, then I do not know what else is left.
Krishnamurti: That is just it. If I say, `I am conditioned', that `I' is also conditioned, then what is left? There is only a conditioned state. Do see that there is only a conditioned state. But the mind objects to that; it wants to find a way out. It does not say, 'I am conditioned, I'll remain there quietly'. Any movement on my part, any movement, conscious or unconscious is the movement of conditioning. Right? So, there is no movement, but only a conditioned state. If you can completely remain with it without going neurotic, you understand? then you will find out. But you will say, 'who is the entity that is going to find out?' There is no other entity who is going to find out the thing itself will begin. (I do not know if you are following all this?) The mind has always avoided this implacable state; it is conditioned from childhood, from the very beginning of life, from millions of years and it tries every way to get out of it Gods, Systems, Philosophies, Sex, Pleasure, Ideas, it does everything to get out of this conditioned state and it is still doing that when it says, `I must go beyond it'. So, whatever movement a conditioned mind makes, whatever movement a conditioned mind follows, it is still conditioned; therefore, one asks, can it remain completely with the fact alone and nothing else? you understand? remain there, having discarded the whole system of gurus, masters, teachers, saviours you know all the things that man has invented in order to be free.
Saanen, 11th July, 1968
From Public Talk 8, Paris, 24 September 1961
We all want power: the power to dominate, the power that money gives, knowledge and capacity. Power gives us position and prestige, and that is what we want. But power is evil, whether it is the power of the dictator or the power of the wife over the husband, or the husband over the wife. It is evil because it forces one to conform and adjust. In that, there is no freedom. If you observe, that is what most of us want, very subtly or very crudely, and that is why we pursue knowledge. Knowledge is so important for most of us, and we worship scholars and their intellectual tricks because with that comes power.
From Commentaries on Living
Series II - Chapter 16 - 'The Pursuit Of Power'
THE COW WAS in labour, and the two or three people who regularly attended to her milking, feeding and cleaning were with her now. She was watching them, and if one went away for any reason, she would gently call. At this critical time she wanted all her friends about her; they had come and she was content, but she was labouring heavily. The little calf was born and it was a beauty, a heifer. The mother got up and went round and round her new baby, nudging her gently from time to time; she was so joyous that she would push us aside. She kept this up for a long time till she finally got tired. We held the baby to suckle, but the mother was too excited. At last she calmed down, and then she wouldn't let us go. One of the ladies sat on the ground, and the new mother lay down and put her head in her lap. She had suddenly lost interest in her calf, and her friends were more to her now. It had been very cold, but at last the sun was coming up behind the hills, and it was getting warmer.
He was a member of the government and was shyly aware of his importance. He talked of his responsibility to his people; he explained how his party was superior to and could do things better than the opposition, how they were trying to put an end to corruption and the black market, but how difficult it was to find incorruptible and yet efficient people, and how easy it was for outsiders to criticize and blame the government for the things that were not being done. He went on to say that when people reached his age they should take things more easily; but most people were greedy for power, even the inefficient. Deep down we were all unhappy and out for ourselves, though some of us were clever at hiding our unhappiness and our craving for power. Why was there this urge to power?
What do we mean by power? Every individual and group is after power: power for oneself, for the party, or the ideology. The party and the ideology are an extension of oneself. The ascetic seeks power through abnegation, and so does the mother through her child. There is the power of efficiency with its ruthlessness, and the power of the machine in the hands of a few; there is the domination of one individual by another, the exploitation of the stupid by the clever, the power of money, the power of name and word, and the power of mind over matter. We all want some kind of power, whether over ourselves or over others. This urge to power brings a kind of happiness, a gratification that is not too transient. The power of renunciation is as the power of wealth. It is the craving for gratification for happiness, that drives us to seek power. And how easily we are satisfied! The ease of achieving some form of satisfaction blinds us. All gratifications blinding. Why do we seek this power?
"I suppose primarily because it gives us physical comforts, a social position, and respectability along recognized channels."
Is the craving for power at only one level of our being? Do we not seek it inwardly as well as outwardly? Why? Why do we worship authority, whether of a book, of a person, of the State, or of a belief? Why is there this urge to cling to a person or to an idea? It was once the authority of the priest that held us, and now it is the authority of the expert, the specialist. Have you not noticed how you treat a man with a title, a man of position, the powerful executive? power in some form seems to dominate our lives: the power of one over many, the using of one by another, or mutual use.
"What do you mean by using another?"
This is fairly simple, is it not? We use each other for mutual gratification. The present structure of society, which is our relationship with each other, is based on need and usage. You need votes to get you into power; you use people to get what you want, and they need what you promise. The woman needs the man, and the man the woman. Our present relationship is based on need and use. Such a relationship is inherently violent, and that is why the very basis of our society is violence. As long as the social structure is based on mutual need and use, it is bound to be violent and disruptive; as long as I use another for my personal gratification, or for the fulfilment of an ideology with which I am identified, there can only be fear, distrust and opposition. Relationship is then a process of self-isolation and disintegration. This is all painfully obvious in the life of the individual and in world affairs.
"But it is impossible to live without mutual need!"
I need the postman, but if I use him to satisfy some inner urge, then the social need becomes a psychological necessity and our relationship has undergone a radical change. It is this psychological need and usage of another that makes for violence and misery. Psychological need creates the search for power, and power is used for gratification at different levels of our being. The man who is ambitious for himself or for his party, or who wants to achieve an ideal, is obviously a disintegrating factor in society.
"Is not ambition inevitable?"
It is inevitable only as long as there is no fundamental transformation in the individual. Why should we accept it as inevitable? Is the cruelty of man to man inevitable? Don't you want to put an end to it? Does not accepting it as inevitable indicate utter thoughtlessness? "If you are not cruel to others, someone else will be cruel to you, so you have to be on top."
To be on top is what every individual, every group, every ideology is trying to do, and so sustaining cruelty, violence. There can be creation only in peace; and how can there be peace if there is mutual usage? To talk of peace is utter nonsense as long as our relationship with the one or with the many is based on need and use. The need and use of another must inevitably lead to power and dominance. The power of an idea and the power of the sword are similar; both are destructive. Idea and belief set man against man, just as the sword does. Idea and belief are the very antithesis of love.
"Then why are we consciously or unconsciously consumed with this desire for power?"
Is not the pursuit of power one of the recognized and respectable escapes from ourselves, from what is? Everyone tries to escape from his own insufficiency, from his inner poverty, loneliness, isolation. The actual is unpleasant, but the escape is glamorous and inviting. Consider what would happen if you were about to be stripped of your power, your position, your hard earned wealth. You would resist it, would you not? You consider yourself essential to the welfare of society, so you would resist with violence, or with rational and cunning argumentation. If you were able voluntarily to set aside all your many acquisitions at different levels, you would be as nothing, would you not?
"I suppose I would - which is very depressing. Of course I don't want to be as nothing."
So you have all the outer show without the inner substance, the incorruptible inward treasure. You want your outward show, and so does another, and from this conflict arise hate and fear, violence and decay. You with your ideology are as insufficient as the opposition, and so you are destroying each other in the name of peace, sufficiency, adequate employment, or in the name of God. As almost everyone craves to be on top, we have built a society of violence, conflict and enmity.
"But how is one to eradicate all this?"
By not being ambitious, greedy for power, for name, for position; by being what you are, simple and a nobody. Negative thinking is the highest form of intelligence. "But the cruelty and violence of the world cannot be stopped by my individual effort. And would it not take infinite time for all individuals to change?"
The other is you. This question springs from the desire to avoid your own immediate transformation, does it not? You are saying, in effect, "What is the good of my changing if everyone else does not change?" One must begin near to go far. But you really do not want to change; you want things to go on as they are, especially if you are on top, and so you say it will take infinite time to transform the world through individual transformation. The world is you; you are the problem; the problem is not separate from you; the world is the projection of yourself. The world cannot be transformed till you are. Happiness is in transformation and not in acquisition.
"But I am moderately happy. Of course there are many things in myself which I don't like, but I haven't the time or the inclination to go after them."
Only a happy man can bring about a new social order; but he is not happy who is identified with an ideology or a belief, or who is lost in any social or individual activity. Happiness is not an end in itself. It comes with the understanding of what is. Only when the mind is free from its own projections can there be happiness. Happiness that is bought is merely gratification; happiness through action, through power, is only sensation; and as sensation soon withers, there is craving for more and more. As long as the more is a means to happiness, the end is always dissatisfaction, conflict and misery. Happiness is not a remembrance; it is that state which comes into being with truth, ever new, never continuous.