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 20. april kl. 10

Becoming - psykologisk eller eksistentiel betingelse

OBS!Teams Appen skal installeres først, hvis man anvender smart phone.

--
Med venlig hilsen/best regards

Peter

The Krishnamurti Podcast - Ep. 199 - Krishnamurti on Being and Becoming

Søndag 13. april kl. 10

Krishnamurti on Silence

Jeg foreslår vi hver især lytter til og ser på nedenstående podcast.

Hilsen Henrik

Krishnamurti on Silence

Urgency of Change: The Krishnamurti Podcast
Episode 100

Søndag 6. april kl. 10

Samtalen tager afsæt i nedenstående video

Søndag 30. marts kl. 10

Samtalen tager afsæt i nedenstående video/tekst

Second Question: In relationship with another memory is there. What is the action of not letting memory intrude? Is it to see its presence as it arises and drop it instantly? Or should one be in a state where memory does not raise its head unless it is necessary. (I will read the question again more slowly)

In relationship with another - please we are listening to the question, not reacting to your relationship. Your wife is sitting next to you, don't react. It is very difficult. (Laughter) It is a rummy world, isn't it? In relationship with another memory is there. What is the action of not letting memory intrude? Is it to see its presence as it arises and drop it instantly? Or should one be in a state where memory does not raise its head unless necessary? Right? Have you got the question?

What is the question? The question is in our relationship with each other, intimate or not, memory is there - right? It is always there because one is living with that person, cooking, sex, washing up (Laughter) the speaker has done a lot of washing up. Wherever he goes he washes up! Except in India, there they won't allow it.

Now the actual state in our relationship with another is the activity of memory. There is no refutation of that. That is so. Right? Do you all agree to that - no? You are not sure. Is not our relationship based on recognition, words, my wife, my husband, what she said this morning, he was moody, you only looked at the newspaper, never looked at me, his concern about his job and so on. That is the memory in operation. Nobody can deny that. What is the action, the questioner asks, of not letting memory intrude. Memory is there - right? It is not a question of memory intruding - right? The question is put wrongly. That is, there is another conclusion that memory should not intrude in relationship - you follow? You have already come to that conclusion by listening to the speaker and saying, 'Yes, quite right, memory should not intrude'. Then you say to me, ask the question, 'How is it possible?' You have put a wrong question, then you answer it wrongly. Right? Let's get that clear.

We live with memories, not only with regard to our intimate relationship with another but also the long series of memories which we have accumulated through time. The racial memory, the linguistic memory, social memory, legislative memory, the memory of having read books, this whole accumulation of memories from childhood, and the racial memories which has been impressed upon us and so on. So we have memories. We are memories - right? Be clear - let's be clear on this point. We are past and present memories, and also the future memories unless there is something, a catharsis or a crisis and so on arises. So memories of the past, the present and the future is what we are. Traditionally, religiously, socially and so on, class, economics - I won't go into all that, repeat it over and over again - so we are memories. And she adds to that memory, or he adds to that memory, so we are all the time accumulating memories, not that memories intrude. Right? When you say that memories should not intrude, it is another form of memory. Have we understood? Because you have heard the speaker say in relationship knowledge is a danger, knowledge is an impediment, that you have accepted, or you see that, and you say, 'Now how am I to prevent that memory intruding?' - but you are a bundle of memories. You don't want that particular memory with your wife or husband, to intrude. There you want a good relationship but elsewhere it doesn't matter - right?

The questioner asks: is it to see it's present, that is the memory arising, and as it arises drop it instantly, in relationship? You understand? Have you understood? Come on sirs. Somebody say yes, or no whether you understand it or not. Or should one be in a state where memory does not raise its head unless necessary? It is a very complicated question - right? And requires not a complicated brain but a very simple brain can observe this. I am going to show it to you in a minute.

I am and you are memories, a bundle of memories. Even if you say there is in me, god, light, a sense of spirituality, it is still memory. So I am, the whole structure of the ego, me and all my knowledge is memory. Now I see in my relationship with my wife, or husband, or children or neighbour, these memories are always included. The memory of my wife who said something nasty, or bullied me, or said something pleasant or exciting, it is still I have gathered that memory. Right? So the question is - are you following all this? - the question is why does the brain retain all these memories - right? Would you ask that question? Right sir? Why does the brain retain something pleasant she has told me, and something unpleasant which she said yesterday that also is recorded, both pleasant and unpleasant are recorded, which becomes memory - right? Why does the brain record? That is the question. You understand?

There has been a war, forty years ago, nearly forty years ago, and they write books about it, they are talking about it, they show on the television various exciting scenes about war, the various material for destruction. You know, kept up, keep this going all the time - why? You understand? We will go into it.

So we are asking a much more serious, fundamental question: why does the brain record everything? Why should it record the unpleasant and the pleasant, it is in a state of constant recording? Right? We are agreed to this? This is a fact, not the speaker's invention. Now the question is: it is necessary to record how to drive a car, right? - how to write a letter, to be skilful in using instruments, to have knowledge in dismantling a car and putting it together, which the speaker has done, so it is necessary there. Right? Now why does it record psychologically, inwardly? You have got the question? We are asking this question? Is it necessary to record the pleasant, the unpleasant, the flattery, the insult, the sense of - you know, all the rest of it - is it necessary? Or the psychological recording gives strength, builds up the ego, the me, the personality - you understand? See that. Recording is necessary, otherwise we couldn't do anything in the physical world. If you are a businessman you have to know quite a lot, if you are a banker you have to know a great deal, if you are a surgeon or a doctor, eye specialist, you follow?, or a builder of computers, you must know a great deal. There it is absolutely necessary - right?

Now we are asking inwardly, inside the skin as it were, which is the psyche, the psychological area, why should there be any recording there? Is it an extension of the outer physical necessities into the psychological necessities, is it an extension of that? Is it an extension of that? You understand? Is it a continuity of the outer knowledge, which is necessary, and we say psychologically also it is necessary? We never question it. You understand what I am saying. Are we somewhat together in this? Surely you are not paralysed are you? So, please I am not hypnotising.

So we are questioning the whole recording process. When I see that what she has said this morning is not important, it is not necessary, she will say something different tomorrow. I will say something to her, something entirely different - right? We both play this game. And what does it matter? Is it necessary? Which means I am building an image about her and she is building an image about me, a picture about me. The picture, the image, the symbol, becomes very strong - right? You know all this, don't you? It becomes tremendously strong. Therefore I say, 'She is like that' and she says I am like that and we keep apart, except perhaps in bed. And the division grows wider and wider and wider, and I break or she breaks, and I pursue another woman and start the same old game again there, and she does exactly the same. Right? Do you agree to all this, the much married people?

So this is going on. And we are saying in examining the question, the inevitable question arises: is it possible not to record psychologically? What does it mean? Can this happen? - this mechanical process? It is a mechanical process. The brain has become accustomed to it, it is part of its tradition, it is part of its continuation of sustaining itself as the self - right? So we are asking: is it possible? Record there, where it is absolutely necessary, not to record at all psychologically? Don't you see the beauty of this, for God's sake? Which means first of all see the danger of recording psychologically. I am a Hindu, you are a Christian - right? You are a Buddhist or Tibetan, or belonging to some potty little guru, he may have a lot of money, a lot of power, position, but it is still a very potty little affair. So you see all this. So we are asking is it possible not to record inwardly? What is your answer? I have put you a question. You have put me several questions, but I am putting you a question. Is it possible not to record psychologically? Which means not to get hurt, or flattered, it is the same thing. You may say it is possible, or you might say it is not possible. If you say either of those things you are blocking yourself - right? If you say 'I can't walk up that mountain', you stop walking. But if you say, 'Well I will walk, see what happens', then a totally different action takes place.

So what is your answer? The questioner's answer is this.

Are you aware of anything? Aware of the shape of this tent, how many sections there are in this tent, the printed word of the owner of the tent there, are you aware of all this? The proportions of it, the length of it, not measuring, the length of it, and are you aware of the people sitting around you, the various colours, the faces, different faces, young, old, white haired, black haired, and so on, are you aware of all this? Or you have never looked? If you are not aware then you may not be aware of your own reactions. You may not be aware of your own responses. You may not be aware of your body, because you are terribly intellectual, all living up there. Or you are very romantic. Are you aware of all this? Sentimental, attached and so on. If you are aware, aware, not say, 'Well I am aware but I don't like that shirt, it is too blue' - (Laughter) So I was told this morning! (Laughter) So are we aware in that sense, without choosing, a choiceless awareness? Then if you are so choicelessly aware, then you are attentive - you understand? Choiceless awareness means attention, not cultivated, say, 'I must attend'. But becoming aware of the trees, the birds, the balloons going up, the mountains, the light on the clouds, the evening, the moonlight and so on, watching, watching. Aware of all this and your reaction to all this, and by not responding, not choosing, I like this, I don't like that, it is mine, it is yours - you follow? Just to be aware. From this choiceless awareness there is attention, attending with your eyes, with your ears, with your nerves, with all your being. Then when she says something to me I am fully attentive - right? She says 'You are a brute', because I am attentive there is no reaction. You understand? It is only when there is inattention there is reaction. Get it.

Gosh, it takes a long time to tell all this. Have you got it? When there is complete attention there is no recording. But I must completely attend there, in driving a car I must be tremendously attentive. Attention is there and here, attention. But the moment that I am inattentive to what she is saying it is recorded, naturally. You have got it? Will you do it? That is the fun, not just listen to a lot of words, but if one actually puts, you know, not into action, see the truth of it. Then there is no recording. But if you record, if you inattentively record, then you can deal with it instantly. But if you are constantly inattentive, as we are, in our relationship with another, because that is our habit, I have known her for forty years, for God's sake, or ten days. You understand? So the quality of attention, and the quality of inattention, not attending, are two different things. Where there is inattention there is choice, unawareness, lack of attention, then the recording process goes on, the old habit is established. But when there is attention the old habit is broken. Got it?

Public Question & Answer 1 Saanen, Switzerland - 22 July 1984

Søndag 23. marts kl. 10

Forskellen på at observere sig selv og at tænke på sig selv

Her er teksten til ovenstående video (On the Difference...), som er et udpluk af en længere tale.

Question: How do we tell the difference between observing ourselves in the sense you mean, and merely thinking about ourselves?

Have you got the answer? Thinking about ourselves and observing about ourselves. They are two different things according to this question. Thinking about oneself, which we all do - I am making progress, I am better than yesterday, I have my problems, which is thinking. I wish I had better food, better clothing, better housing, or I wish I had more sex - you follow? - money, thinking about oneself all the time - which most of us do, even the austere monk, he does think about himself - right? Only in the name of God - right? And the questioner says, what is the difference between that, thinking about yourself, and observing yourself - right? Right, that is the question.

Now we know what it means to think about ourselves - right? It is really going round and round in circles. Either expanding the self, the ego, or contracting the ego - right? I am the world, I am God, I must be more kindly, I must love. I must be more intelligent, I must meditate in order to achieve - whatever they want to achieve. So we are all caught in that. And observing oneself is something entirely different - right?

Then let's find out what does it mean to observe. You understand the question? We are together in this? Come on sirs!

First of all, do we observe anything without the word? Do we observe the mountain and not call it mountain? Do we observe the evening light on the cloud, with its most extraordinary colour, beauty and something immense, can we look at those clouds and the mountain without using a single word? Can we do that? You understand my question? Don't look so paralysed. That is, can we look at anything objectively, the trees, nature, the waters, the sky and the evening star and the silence of a morning, this extraordinary world we live in, natural world, can we look at anything without a single word? And to find that out we have to find, go into the question why the brain is caught in a network of words? You understand my question? Are we together in this?

We are asking: can we look at anything, including my wife, my husband, my daughter, the politicians, the various gurus and the priests and all the circus that goes on in the name of religion, can we look at all that without reaction first? Then find out if we can look at all that without the network of words interfering with our observation. Can we do that? Have you ever tried that? When one looks at one's wife or husband, can you look at her or him, without all the images, all the things that you have accumulated about her or him, just to look? Can you? You are exceptionally silent when I talk about the husband and the wife and the girl and the boy. So one has to find out why the brain is so caught up in words. When you say he is a communist or a totalitarian you have wiped it out, you have put him in a category, in a cage, and that is the end of it. Or he is British. Or he is French, or he is an Indian, or he is this or that. See what is happening to our brain. Linguistically the brain has been caught with words, not the significance and the depth of the word, but just the word. This requires careful watching. Watching is to observe. There was a balloon going up this morning - you must have all seen it - and you watched it, going up and up and up very, very slowly. The gondola hanging and you saw the whole thing. Then you might say, 'By Jove, I wish I were up there', or you say to yourself, 'How dangerous.' And so on. We never look at anything without words, without reactions. Look.

Now you are all sitting there and you are unfortunately seeing the speaker. And you have already put him into a category. You already have an image about him. You already say he is this, he is that, or he is some kind of idiot or whatever you like to say about him. So you never (noise of train) - he has forgotten to whistle! (Laughter) - so you never look at him as though for the first time. You understand? Have you ever done this kind of thing? Not just for a minute or for an hour or a day, but the freshness of a mind, brain - you understand? - which is not caught in words, reactions, look at everything as though for the first time you are looking at the world. That observation is to watch oneself, never allowing a single thought to escape, without watching it, being aware of it, giving your whole attention to that one thought. And then another thought, keep at it. So that your brain is tremendously attentive. You understand? So that watching is not egocentric movement. Whereas thinking about yourself is egotistic, self-centred activity. It is clear, isn't it?

Now, just a minute. How do we move from this to that? Right? You are asking naturally, you must ask that question. Or am I asking the question and you are accepting it? You understand? Suppose one is self-centred, I am self-centred, egocentric, all my outlook is personal - I am not loved, I must love, you know, all that kind of turmoil, silliness that goes on. I am that, one is that. Then how am I, how is it to move to the other? Right? You are asking that question, aren't you? Is that a right question? Moving from here to there. That is a wrong question obviously. Because if you move from here to that, that is the same as this. Vous avez compris? Move! You understand this? If I say I am selfish, now I must not be selfish, I must observe. The 'must' is still in the same category, or the same movement, as thinking about oneself. Right? Are we together in all this? Some of us are I hope at least.

So the question then is answered, not the answer is outside the question, but the answer is in the question. Right? That is observing the question itself, what it reveals. It reveals a tremendous lot. Because you see observing, if I can put it differently, observing, perceiving has no time. The other is caught in time: thinking about myself, I will fulfil one day, I have no roots now but I am going to establish roots some time, I have no identity - you follow? All those are time binding qualities. Time binding quality is essentially the self. I don't know if you want to go into all that. I am finding all this as I talk - right? Whereas watching, if you watch that bird, there is no time in that at all, just watching - right? So the word and thought create time. I won't go into all that. Got it?

Public Question & Answer 1 Saanen, Switzerland - 22 July 1984

Søndag 16. marts kl. 10

Krishnamurti dialog

Søndag 9. marts kl. 10

Krishnamurti dialog

Søndag 2. marts kl. 10

Tid er uorden

Tekst:Time is disorder,Public Discussion 3 London, England - 29 April 1965

https://www.jkrishnamurti.org/content/time-disorder-0/time

Mvh Peter

Søndag 23. februar kl. 10

Sandhed er i det umiddelbare nu

Hermed fremsender jeg mit oplæg så I har mulighed for at se det igennem på forhånd … dette kan måske reducere risikoen for `information overload`og gøre det lettere at bevare overblikket. Som I kan se er oplægget delt op i tre dele så der er mulighed for at fordøje det ved at have dialog efter hver del. De sidste to slides er `bonus slides`og figurerer ikke på oversigten.

Søndag 9. februar kl. 10

Al væren er nu - Nuet indeholder det hele!

Søndag 2. februar kl. 10

Tankens detronisering

"So unless you understand this, what is the nature of thought, what is the nature of desire, gone into it, given it its right place - and thought gives itself its right place, then you will be everlastingly battling with thought, with all the images that it has created."

Tryk på linket for at læse teksten

Søndag 26. januar kl. 10

Alkymi og mutation

I bogen Tradition and Revolution med Krishnamurti og Pupul Jayakar udforsker de nogle lidt usædvanlige emner. Vi kan jo tage et kapitel en gang imellem, når der er et hul. Der bliver ikke nogen tekstgennemgang som sådan, da jeg har travlt i denne uge.

mvh Rasmus

Tryk på linket for at læse dialogen

Søndag 19. januar kl. 10

Inddæmningen af det onde

Dialogue 3 - New Delhi - 15th December 1970 - ‘The containment of evil’

Questioner P: One of the most vital problems that has concerned man is the necessity of containing evil. It appears as if at certain times in history, because of various circumstances, evil has had a wider field within which to operate. The manifestations of evil are so wide, the problems of evil so complex that the individual does not know how to deal with them.

What would you say is the way of dealing with evil? Is there such a thing as evil independent of good?

Krishnamurti: I wonder what you mean. The bush with so many thorns – do you call that evil? Do you call a serpent with poison,evil? No savage animal is evil– neither the shark nor the tiger.

So what do you mean by the word evil? Something harmful? Something that can bring tremendous grief, something that can bring great pain, something that can destroy or prevent the light of understanding? Would you call war evil? Would you call the generals, the rulers, the admirals evil because they help to bring about war, destruction?

P: That which thwarts the nature of things can be called evil.

Krishnamurti: Man is brutal, is he evil?

P: If he is thwarting, if he through malignant intention makes certain things deviate....

Krishnamurti: I was just wondering what that word evil means. What does evil mean to an intelligent mind; a mind that is aware of all the horrors in the world?

P:Evil is that  which diminishes consciousness, that which brings darkness.

Krishnamurti: Fear, sorrow, pain do that. Would you say that evil is the encouragement of fear? Is evil a means to further sorrow? Is evil social or environmental conditioning which perpetuates war? All these limit consciousness and create darkness and sorrow.Evil, according to the Christian idea, is the devil. Does the Hindu have any idea of evil? If he has an idea of evil, what would it be? Personally I never think of evil.

Would you say that in the flowering of goodness, there is no evil at all? That this state does not know evil? Or is evil an invention of the mind which breeds fear and creates the good?

P: May I say something? If you go deep down into the recesses of the human mind, into the history of mankind, there has always been the sorcerer, the witch who subverts the laws of nature, who brings fear and darkness. It is one of the strangest elements in the human mind. It is because of this terrible fear of the unknown, that darkness without limit, without end, that prevails through the history of man, that the human being has cried out for protection; a cry that echoes through human consciousness. It is this which is the unknown, un-named matrix of fear. It is not enough to suggest that it is fear. It is all that and more.

Krishnamurti: Are you saying that deep in man, in the inner recesses of the mind, there is the fear of the unknown, of something that man cannot touch or imagine? Being afraid so deeply, he demands protection of the gods and anything that brings an awakening of that danger, any intimation of that hidden thing, he calls evil?

P: This darkness exists deep in human consciousness all the time.

Krishnamurti: Is evil the opposite of the good, or is it totally dependent of the good?

P: It is independent of the good.

Krishnamurti: You are saying it is independent. So, is evil something that is in itself unrelated to the beautiful, to love? Against evil, man has always sought protection, as he would against an animal. There is this hidden dark danger. Man is aware of it, he is frightened and seeks through incantations, rituals, prayers and so on to put it away and be guarded. The bush that is so full of thorns protects itself against the animal and the animal would call that evil as it cannot get at the leaves. Is there such a force, such an embodiment of evil which is totally apart from the good, the beautiful? There is this whole idea that evil is fighting good. This evil is seen as embodied in people and evil is always fighting the good and the gentle. I am asking, is evil totally independent of the good? You must be very careful not to become superstitious.

P: “Fear” of something is opposed to goodness. But the darkest fears are not “of anything”.

S: It is not only protection and fear and the fear involved in evil, but protection in order to move forward.

P: The demand for protection, the mantras as spells, the mandalas as magical diagrams and the mudras as magical gestures were intended to provide protection against evil.

Krishnamurti: You see when you go deeply into consciousness, you reach a point where the unknown appears as the dark, and there you stop, because you get frightened. The mind penetrates deeply up to a point, and below that point there is this feeling of dark emptiness. Because of the darkness, you have prayers, incantations, and because of the fear of the dark, you ask for protection.

Can the mind go through the darkness, which means can the mind not be afraid? Can it operate so that the darkness becomes light? Can you penetrate the darkness of which you are afraid, which you have named “evil”? Can you penetrate that so completely that darkness does not exist? Then, what is evil?

P: When the ritual mandala is drawn, the entry into the mandala is through spell and mudra. In this entry into the darkness, what is the spell which will open the gates?

Krishnamurti: Consciousness as thought, investigates itself – its depth. As it enters it comes upon this darkness. This investigation is not a process of time. And you are asking what is the spell or energy that will penetrate to the very bottom of the darkness, what is that energy and how is it to come into being?

The very energy which started investigating is still there, more heavy, vital as it enters, penetrates. Why do you ask whether there is need of greater energy?

P: Because energy dries up. We penetrate up to a point and do not go further.

Krishnamurti: Because of fear, because of apprehension of something we do not know, we dissipate energy instead of bringing it into focus. I want to penetrate into myself. I see entering into myself is the same movement as the outer. It is entering into space. In entering into space, there is a certain demand, a certain energy. That energy must be without any effort, without any distortion. As it enters, it gathers momentum. If it has no passage through which it can escape, it is not distorted. It becomes deeper, wider, stronger. Then you reach a point where there is darkness. And how does one enter that darkness with this tremendous energy? (pause)

P: The first question with which we started was how is evil to be contained. You have said as one penetrates the sea of darkness, darkness is not; light is. But when there is evil in human beings, in certain situations, in certain happenings, is there any action which can contain this evil?

Krishnamurti: I would not put it that way. Resistance to evil strengthens evil. So, if the mind is living in goodness, then there is no resistance and evil cannot touch it. Therefore there is no containing of evil.

P: Is there only goodness then?

Krishnamurti: We have to go back to something else – the mind has gone into darkness and it is finished with darkness. But is there evil which is independent of all that? Or is evil part of goodness?

You see in nature there is the big living on the little, the bigger on the big. I would not call that evil. The deliberate desire to hurt another; is that part of evil? I want to hurt another; is that part of evil? I want to hurt you because you have done something to me; is that evil?

P: That is part of evil.

Krishnamurti: Then that implies will. You hurt me, and, because I am proud, I want to retaliate. Wanting to retaliate is an action of will. Whether it is the will to react or to do good, both are evil.

P: Again coming back to the mandala;evil can enter when the gateways are not protected. Here, your eyes and ears are the gateways.

Krishnamurti: So you are saying when the eyes see clearly, ears hear clearly, then evil cannot enter.

To go back, the deliberate intention, the collection of intentions, the thinking it over, which is all the deep intention to hurt, is part of will. I think that is where evil is – the deliberate act to hurt. You hurt me, I hurt you; I apologize and it is finished. But if I hold, retain, strengthen deliberately, follow a policy to hurt you, which is part of the will in man to do harm or good, then there is evil.

So is there a way of living without will? The moment I resist,evil must be on one side, and the good on the other and there is relationship between the two. When there is no resistance, there is no relationship between the two. And love then is an open space, without any words, without any resistance. Love is action out of emptiness. As we had been discussing yesterday, when the male elements deliberately become assertive, demanding, possessive, dominating, man invites evil. And the female, yielding, yielding, yielding and deliberately yielding in order to dominate, also invites evil.

So, where there is the cunning pursuit of domination, which is the operation of will, there is the beginning of evil.

You see against that evil we try to protect ourselves. We are ourselves creating evil and yet we draw a circle a diagram round the doorstep of the house to seek protection from evil, and inwardly the serpent of evil is operating.

Keep your house clean. Forget all the mantras; nothing can touch you.

We ask protection of the gods whom we have created. It is really quite fantastic.

All these wars, all the racial hatreds, all the accumulated hatreds which man has been storing up, that must have a collected hatred, a gathered evil. The Hitlers, the Mussolinis, the Stalins, the concentration camps, the Atillas; all that must be stored, must have a body somewhere.

So also, the feeling of “do not kill, be kind, be gentle, be compassionate” – that also must be stored somewhere.

When people try to protect themselves against the one, the evil, they are protecting themselves against the good too, because man has created these two. So, can the mind enter into darkness and the very entrance into it, is the dispelling of darkness?

Tradition and Revolution

Hvad er ondskab?

" People speak sometimes about the "bestial" cruelty of man, but that is terribly unjust and offensive to beasts, no animal could ever be so cruel as a man, so artfully, so artistically cruel. "

- Fyodor Dostoevsky

Søndag 12. januar kl. 10

Tekst til videouddraget:

"And, as we were saying, action based on skill, which we discussed the last time that we met here, last Thursday, action based on skill must inevitably lead to separative, fragmentary action. Please follow it. I will go into it again as we did last Thursday. Because our education, our environment, sociological demands, urge everyone to develop a particular skill. And that skill brings about not only a sense of power, position, but also such action born of that skill is very limiting, emphasises the importance of oneself. One builds the structure of oneself, the I, the ego. And without clarity skill becomes destructive. Clarity - we mean by that, the clarity that comes when there is the art of listening, the art of seeing, the art of learning. And we mean by that word 'art' to put everything in its right place, where it belongs. Then out of that action, which is to give everything its proper place, out of that comes clarity.

Clarity is not born of logic, reason, or objective thinking. But clarity one must have, to act clearly, wholly, completely. One must understand the meaning of listening, the meaning of seeing and the art of learning. We said the art of listening means that you listen not to your own prejudices, not to your own conclusions, to your own experiences, with which you are quite familiar. And with those prejudices, conditions you listen, then you don't listen at all. Then you are merely judging what is being said with what you already know, therefore there is no actual communication or clarity.

And the art of seeing - to look without any direction, without any motive, to look at the world, to look what is happening around you, politically, religiously, and all the things that the gurus unfortunately are bringing over to Europe - to see all that clearly without any personal demand, without any personal prejudice or want. That again needs a great deal of attention one has to have.

And also to learn. And I think this is very important to understand. To learn implies, as most of us know, to learn knowledge, facts, information, and that information, knowledge, experience is stored in the brain and according to that knowledge you act skilfully, or not skilfully. But when thought, which is the result of accumulated knowledge, experience, and memory, and therefore reaction to that memory - which is thought - when thought spills over, as it were, into psychological field then it creates havoc - which we talked about sufficiently the other day. So if you don't mind we will not go into that again, because we have a lot of things to talk about still.

So the art of listening, the art of seeing what is happening around you, what is happening inside you, what is taking place in your relationship with another, man, woman, to see it very clearly, then the art of learning brings about an extraordinary quality of clarity. If you have done it, as you are sitting there if you do it actually, not theoretically, follow it step by step and do it, then you will have an extraordinary clarity from which action takes place. And in that clarity there comes naturally the skill. But what we are doing now is to develop skill without clarity and therefore whatever we do in the world, in our life, daily life, leads to constant conflict, misery, confusion. That again is very obvious. And we were saying that without compassion clarity in itself has very little meaning."

Jeg kunne tænke mig at nærlæse teksten, som jeg gjorde sidst.

Mvh Rasmus

Hele talen:

som video:J. Krishnamurti - Saanen 1977 - Public Talk 4 - Does compassion flower in the field of desire?
som tekst:Does compassion flower in the field of desire? | J. Krishnamurti)

Søndag 5. januar kl. 10

Krishnamurti om meningen med livet

"Filosoffer opfinder eller udtænker på intellektuel vis en mening med livet, og vi accepterer almindeligvis en sådan mening, fordi vi ikke selv ser nogen mening med vores liv."

Søndag 29. december kl. 10

The hidden want in the dark corridors of the mind

Tekst:

What is essential is to understand this deep, hidden want, which is always changing - and that is the beauty of it. You think you have understood it, only to find that it has moved somewhere else. So one has to pursue this hidden want down all the dark corridors of the mind.

Then there comes that aloneness which is attention, and which is really a motionless state. I am not using that word `motionless' in opposition to activity. A mind that is motionless, still, is not a dead mind.

It is an active mind, it is activity itself, because it is still,and only such a mind is creative - not the mind which paints dances, or writes books. That is merely the outward expression of a mind which may not be creative at all....

The mind that is in a state of creation is really perfectly still; and only such a mind can receive the immeasurable.

To know the real, the imperishable, the measureless, the mind must be silent, in a state of complete humility; and the mind has no humility as long as there is the deep, hidden want.

(New Delhi 10th Public Talk 11th March 1959)

--

Med venlig hilsen/best regards

Peter

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.

for andre internationale arrangementer