Friday, March 16, 2007

Choiceless Awareness & J. Krishnamurti

Mudderpugger talked a bit about Jiddu Krishnamurti and formal sitting in a recent post. What follows is therefore all his fault. :-))

If you know K's teachings and don't like 'em, hit the DEL key immediately.
If you don't know K's teachings, and there is curiosity, read on.

Although not a Buddhist (Krishnamurti steadfastly refused to align himself with any formal group), K's teachings, nonetheless, are in concert with all the great zen masters.

Yes, it is true that K did not prescribe a formal practice. But he did supply subtle directions. He repeatedly admonished his listeners to "pay attention" and gently described what paying attention entails. As he explains it, paying attention is "sitting," is "meditation." It can be done anywhere and such a practice is feebly weak when it is restricted to only "formal sitting" (as on a zafu). K knew that (as do all sages and masters, zen and otherwise), and it is possible that this is why he didn't focus his lectures on formal sitting. He did, however, point out, over and over, that paying attention can lead to: a mind [that] functions in a different dimension in which there is no conflict, no sense of "otherness.

Pretty cool, huh!

He also stressed, repeatedly, that in reality, there is no "freedom of thought," only "freedom from thought."

If this hasn't put you off, or if it has inspired curiosity, here is an excerpt from K's wonderful book Freedom From the Known (K's closing comment is damn powerful if the excerpt below is read through to the end in a single sitting):

Attention is not the same thing as concentration. Concentration is exclusion; attention, which is total awareness, excludes nothing. It seems to me that most of us are not aware, not only of what we are talking about but of our environment, the colours around us, the people, the shape of the trees, the clouds, the movement of water. Perhaps it is because we are so concerned with ourselves, with our own petty little problems, our own ideas, our own pleasures, pursuits, and ambitions that we are not objectively aware. And yet we talk a great deal about awareness. Once in India I was traveling in a car. There was a chauffeur driving and I was sitting beside him. There were three gentlemen behind discussing awareness very intently and asking me questions about awareness, and unfortunately at that moment the driver was looking somewhere else and he ran over a goat, and the three gentlemen were still discussing awareness – totally unaware that they had run over a goat. When this lack of attention was pointed out to those gentlemen who were trying to be aware it was a great surprise to them.

And with most of us it is the same. We are not aware of outward things or of inward things. If you want to understand the beauty of a bird, a fly, or a leaf, of a person with all her complexities, you have to give your whole attention, which is awareness. And you can give your whole attention only when you care, which means that you really love to understand -- then you give your whole heart and mind to find out.

Such awareness is like living with a snake in the room; you watch its every movement, you are very, very sensitive to the slightest sound it makes. Such a state of attention is total energy; in such awareness the totality of yourself is revealed in an instant.

When you have looked at yourself so deeply you can go much deeper. When we use the word “deeper” we are not being comparative. We think in comparisons – deep and shallow, happy and unhappy. We are always measuring, comparing. Now is there such a state as the shallow and deep in oneself? When I say, “My mind is shallow, petty, narrow, limited,” how do I know all these things? Because I have compared my mind with your mind which is brighter, has more capacity, is more intelligent and alert. Do I know my pettiness without comparison? When I am hungry, I do not compare that hunger with yesterday’s hunger. Yesterday’s hunger is an idea, a memory.

If I am all the time measuring myself against you, struggling to be like you, then I am denying what I am myself. Therefore I am creating an illusion. When I have understood that comparison in any form leads only to greater illusion and greater misery, just as when I analyze myself, add to my knowledge of myself bit by bit, or identify myself with something outside myself, whether it be the State, a saviour, or an ideology – when I understand that all such processes lead only to greater conformity and therefore greater conflict – when I see this I put it completely away. Then my mind is no longer seeking. It is very important to understand this. Then my mind is no longer groping, searching, questioning. This does not mean that my mind is satisfied with things as they are, but such a mind has no illusion. Such a mind can then move in a totally different dimension. The dimension in which we usually live, the life of every day which is pain, pleasure and fear, has conditioned the mind, limited the nature of the mind, and when that pain, pleasure and fear have gone (which does not mean that you no longer have joy: joy is something entirely different from pleasure) – then the mind functions in a different dimension in which there is no conflict, no sense of “otherness.”

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.

Verbally we can only go so far: what lies beyond cannot be put into words, because the word is not the thing. Up to now we can describe, explain, but no words or explanations can open the door. What will open the door is daily awareness and attention -- awareness of how we speak, what we say, how we walk, what we think. It is like cleaning a room and keeping it in order. Keeping the room in order is important in one sense but totally unimportant in another. There must be order in the room, but order will not open the door or the window. What will open the door is not your volition or desire. You cannot possibly invite the other. All that you can do is keep the room in order, which is to be virtuous for itself, not for what it will bring. To be sane, rational, orderly. Then perhaps, if you are lucky, the window will open and the breeze will come in. Or it may not. It depends on the state of your mind. And that state of mind can be understood only by yourself, by watching it and never trying to shape it, never taking sides, never opposing, never agreeing, never justifying, never condemning, never judging -- which means watching it without any choice. And out of this choiceless awareness perhaps the door will open and you will know that dimension in which there is no conflict and no time.

25 Comments:

At March 16, 2007, Blogger gniz said...

I'm not a huge fan of JK but I really, really, really enjoyed this excerpt. Thanks!

 
At March 16, 2007, Blogger MudderPugger said...

hey, you brought him up 1st!
...and, I'm glad you did, and doubly glad of that nice excerpt, which I hope you copy/pasted and if not, would like to thank you for so faithfully reproducing it here for us to enjoy.

BTW, gniz, I never responded to your invite to GanstaZen and MikeD's blog. I like some of that old gangsta shit, and if we all don't descend into a screaming fit and instead continue to feed off of one another's thoughts, comments and general bullshit, I'll definitely stop by.

As it is now, I need to be commenting on this blog like I need a hole in my head. I'm self-employed and therefore must be self-motivated and that's always a struggle.
Every time I come here, there's a feeling of "I really oughtta be working, we're fuckin' broke and outta smoke."

btw, how could you not be an huge fan of K??
He dah man! Reading that passage made me wanna break out my (unread) volumes of his "Commentaries on Living"
but, I don't have time for that crap, we're broke and outta smoke.
See yah!

 
At March 16, 2007, Blogger MikeDoe said...

Interesting post. I could get used to this guy. Is he dead?

"Such awareness is like living with a snake in the room; you watch its every movement, you are very, very sensitive to the slightest sound it makes"

I like that as an explanation. I also like the point he made that Zazen is an introduction to awareness and no more. I think that is accurate.

 
At March 16, 2007, Blogger endofthedream said...

Mikedoe wrote

Interesting post. I could get used to this guy. Is he dead?

Yes, J. Krishnamurti is dead. Sometime in February 1986.

If you're interested in him, a pretty honest summary and overview of the dude, and his teachings (both sides the pro and the con, well-balanced imo), is a Wikipedia. Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti

Just one warning, so you don't make a mistake. There is another dude, also a brilliant, wise teacher, U.G. Krishnamurti, (still alive) who, although he shares some similarities with "K" ~ is also considered one of K's harshest critics.

Ironically, I like both but I find UG's writings angry, bellicose and harsh. Therefore I don't get as much pleasure reading his words as I do from K. I no longer go back to his words even though, at some previous point they were useful...several...confusions... fell away while reading UG (despite the off-putting tone).

 
At March 16, 2007, Blogger endofthedream said...

how could you not be an huge fan of K??

I wasn't. Really. Not for a long time. About 20 years!

I got into the spiritual game, became a seeker, around 1983 as a result of reading The Empty Mirror by Janwillem van de Wetering. This biography catapulted me deeply into zen (I even went so far as to take a year's leave of absence from my job to live full-time in a zen monastery).

Why? Because I really REALLY wanted to "get enlightened." This fantasy was greatly influenced by stories written in The Three Pillars of Zen by Philip Kapleau Roshi as well as other, less popular zen and buddhist texts.

J. Krishnamurti didn't fit this scenario. I read him, first time, around 1987, when I was heavily into my "zen" training, still looking to become an enlightened monk. Still chanting daily, bowing religiously, meditating furiously (Muuuuuuuuuuuu......).

Let me add...I see NOTHING wrong with doing any (or all) of that stuff. If you're driven to do it, it will happen (until it doesn't). It is just not possible to take any judgment about it seriously. But it is an error in understanding to confuse those behaviors with waking up.

So what was it about K that didn't appeal to me during those years? Krishnamurti's writings and teachings offered NO support for such dreams. He adamantly refused to perpetuate fantasies of a utopian land, a place (or mind state) where one is always in "bliss." And yet he held and taught a vision of living life in a different way than most of us live. (Similar to what is currently being taught by the nondual teacher Byron Katie.)

So because K pointed to a way of being that was not the mind-shattering, bliss-inducing, enlightenment-creating story that I was being driven towards, there was no resonance with his words, ideas, teachings. I couldn't hear was he was saying until the energy behind these silly (but understandable) beliefs fell away. And that took almost 13 years!

 
At March 16, 2007, Blogger karen said...

I have not commented in quite a while, but the Krishnamurti discussion is very refreshing. My entire practice is based on his teachings. I began reading K in around 1979 and I was so struck by one comment that he made that I have followed his teachings since. My only regret was that I passed on the chance to see him in DC right before his death. I agree that he doesn't specifically give direction regarding meditation, but one of his books, "Think on These Things" is very easy to read and revealing.

 
At March 16, 2007, Blogger endofthedream said...

My entire practice is based on his teachings.

Hi Karen ~

Since Krishnamurti doesn't prescribe (at least technically) a "practice," I would enjoy learning (if you care to share) what your practice entails, and perhaps, how it relates to Krishnamurti's teachings. This is not a challenge: it is simple curiosity.

 
At March 16, 2007, Blogger MudderPugger said...

thanks for the backstory, endo. You have provided context for yourself, and may I add that it was unsurprising?
We sorta entered Zen from opposite doors, which may explain why I was immediately attracted to JK, I had no use for enlightenment, whatever that was.

Karen, are you familiar with Erich Schiffmann? He actually first introduced me, indirectly through his own teachings, to Jiddu Krishnamurti in his book, "Yoga; The spirit and practice of moving into stillness"

I ask because endo asked what your practice was. Are you a yogi?
I started doing yoga before I started sitting, and credit JK, by way of Erich, for turning me onto what yoga really was about, what it yoked you to. In fact, along with K. McDonald's "How to Meditate", it was perhaps my first real solid dose of dharma. The second good wack from the aforementioned dead salmon.

I came back because the phrase "choiceless awareness" has stuck with me all day. I believe K might have used it in "The First and Last Freedom", which is the only entire book by him that I have read, because I am familiar with it.

Endo quotes JK in his latest post:
"All effort to meditate is the denial of meditation. ...Any authority on meditation is the very denial of it. All the knowledge, the concepts, the examples have no place in meditation."

Alan Watts, (ironically, just such an authority on meditation) gave a good example in one of his talks, something to the effect of "have you ever noticed what happens when someone says, 'now, listen carefully to this' that you scrunch up your face and stare and try not to blink and do all sorts of things which actually interfere with actual listening. You can't make yourself listen, and when you try, you only make it harder to do so", or somesuchstuff.

True awareness is choiceless. We cover it up with what I like to call our "bullshit".

anyway....

this is cool, I saw a couple people get turned on to one of my favorite (and least read!) "teachers", or at least, more turned onto him.
I say least read, because all of my "official" teachers were authors, and when I finally found myself able to understand and appreciate JK enough for Zm to try and turn me onto him, I was getting out of my dharma book devouring frenzy. His might have been the last word (right after Brad's, as a matter of fact!) that I read about such nonsense.

In fact, that's something I'm curious about; is there really anything to talk about now? LOL.
I used to read books, and for a while doing so was like turning on light switches, I'd read something, shit would light up and I'd have to put the book down and stare at that newly illuminated shit- "wow! that's some good shit! It's really there, and it's quite stinky!"
But, after a while, the shit's still there, and now you're used to it, "that's just some shit right there" and you just find yourself reading descriptions of the same old shit.
You read along in agreement, semi hard but it's masturbatory at that point, like this, dancing about the glorious architecture.

I'm babbling. Sorry. @man said this was a Bar and Grill. Well, I don't eat meat, but I like sittin' at the bar.

I'll have another cider, bartender.

Too bad this wasn't Amsterdam. And I know none of you good Buddhists here are holdin'.....

 
At March 16, 2007, Blogger MudderPugger said...

Hey Endo,
I hope my comments about entering through opposite doors didn't sound in any way offensive.
@man ("at"man, duh)and I have a friend whom we call Zm, after the moniker we were introduced to him by, zenmite. He's a lot like you, and also entered through that opposite door I said you had entered through.
I was a fuck-up and got moved to the front of the class by compassionate teachers, I guess. He, apparently like you, took the long way.
At the risk of being flattering, I want to say again that I'm enjoying your babble immensely, yours and everyone's here (you too, Dan!). Sometimes I'm not a very good writer, and it's often easy for the written word to sound flat and cold.
Know'm say'n, Cuz?

 
At March 16, 2007, Blogger endofthedream said...

Hi Mudderpugger ~

In fact, that's something I'm curious about; is there really anything to talk about now?

Now?

Was there ever anything to talk about? :-)

Look. If a thought arises and is too compelling to ignore, it will be posted. That's all there is to it.

I like your description of reading books and the light switch coming on. And how, at some point, it doesn't go off (or ignites itself on its own without the reading of the books).

It's simple really: you're noticing the conditioning taking place. During reading something unfamiliar your brain is getting rewired with new concepts and, eventually, those concepts take on a life of their own. What was unfamiliar, provocative, exotic, and not previously a part of the programming that is you, has now become integrated in the architecture of your brain. So now it is familiar, comfortable, and carries less pizzazz. It becomes "nothing special."

I hope my comments about entering through opposite doors didn't sound in any way offensive.

No. They didn't. You'll have to try harder to offend me. LoL

At the risk of being flattering, I want to say again that I'm enjoying your babble immensely,

No. I wasn't flattered. You'll have to try harder. roflmao


Sometimes I'm not a very good writer,

This is not my experience of you as a writer.

and it's often easy for the written word to sound flat and cold.

Sweetheart, don't worry about it. You come across here as warm, caring, and expressing a big heart.

 
At March 16, 2007, Blogger Anatman said...

What did JK mean by "the other"?

Can anyone expand on that? Did he use the term in other writings?

 
At March 17, 2007, Blogger MikeDoe said...

"..is there really anything to talk about now?..I used to read books, and for a while doing so was like turning on light switches...reading descriptions of the same old shit...but it's masturbatory at that point, like this..."

Lots of interesting points.

Dharma Masturbation: Millions of Buddhists cannot be wrong!

Books can be used to reach an intellectual understanding or they can be used to build a false delusion of understanding or they can be used to maybe confirm an intuitive understanding.

What books cannot do is give you an intuitive understanding and that is what Buddhism actually requires. In many ways Buddhism is about moving from cognition to intuition.

Meditation of any sort is not an intellectual thing. It is done / does it self at a level below where the intellect can grasp - like sight.

It is possible to reach an intellectual understanding of something and not have an intuitive understanding of something - an intellectual buddhist or a masturbator who believes he is a great lover.

Books and blogs like this can be nothing more than the intellect amusing itself. They can also be a way in which the intellect can guide a person into actions which lead into intuitive understanding.

Reading a book on sex positions may be helpful in exploring sex more fully if you have a partner - but it is of very limited benefit.

I have a book on judo at home which I bought because I do Judo. I bought it 2 months ago and it remains unread. I learn a lot about Judo intuitively when I am sparring with a guy who is 5ft8 weights 210lbs and is keen to flatten me.

I could read a book on Judo or read a book on Sex positions but without the physical practice in an appropriate way it is useless at best. At worst you can mistake an image of the real thing for the real thing.

FWIF My practice was just to pay attention to everything all the time without discrimination starting by paying attention to the breath whilst doing something. It's minimalist, it's kosher, it's hard to do and eventually does itself.

 
At March 17, 2007, Blogger Dan said...

Books and blogs like this can be nothing more than the intellect amusing itself. They can also be a way in which the intellect can guide a person into actions which lead into intuitive understanding.

this is what i was trying to say at the end of the comments on gnizs old post except phrased much more eloquently. thanks mike.

 
At March 17, 2007, Blogger endofthedream said...

Hi Anatman,

I don't recally K using the other in other places but he wrote and spoke volumes so it may be there.

To get a sense of what he's pointing to, look at the sentences surrounding it.

There must be order in the room, but order will not open the door or the window. What will open the door is not your volition or desire. You cannot possibly invite the other. All that you can do is keep the room in order, which is to be virtuous for itself, not for what it will bring. To be sane, rational, orderly. Then perhaps, if you are lucky, the window will open and the breeze will come in. Or it may not. It depends on the state of your mind...And out of this choiceless awareness perhaps the door will open and you will know that dimension in which there is no conflict and no time.

K is comparing what is normally present to another way of being, an "other" way, a way in which "there is no conflict and no time."

What is that way? The absence of the sense of a separate self.

That absence is always present.

Both for those who are awake and those who are asleep.

It might be called the buddha-nature, or Consciousness.

So why are so many oblivious to it? Consider what moves with and counterbalances the other nearly all the time (except when one is not in deep sleep):

thought.

Thought is so powerful and obstreperous and omnipresent that it almost always overwhelms the other.

Thought's sole action is to divide: this from that, you from me, her from him...

With the arising of conceptual thought comes the ten thousand things as the Taoists are fond of saying.

And importantly, there is nothing wrong with thought. It does what it does. It allows us to function in phenomenality as we do.

A modern Advaita sage, Ramesh Balsekar, liked to subdivide thought in this way. He pointed to the fact that there is the working mind and the thinking mind. (I mentioned this in another post.)

The working mind generates thoughts which allow us to get from "here" to "there," to build a ship, to prepare a meal, to realize that we should put broccoli in our mouth, not shit. It is purely functional.

The thinking mind produces thoughts which say "I did that," "I'm a success," "I don't look that hot" (when gazing at oneself in a mirror). These are self-referential thoughts and, when they are taken seriously (attached to), they support the sense of a separate self. They birth the egomind, one might say. They serve no functional purpose (other than entification).

BOTH types of mind arise on their own accord. There is NOTHING one can do to stop them. All that needs to happen is for there to be a seeing that there is no one here as a persisting entity.

That's it. That's the end of the game.

For most it takes a tremendous amount of passion, energy, and persistence to see through thought. (Some rare ones take to it like a fish to water.)

When it is seen that there is just this ... arising ... rolling along, generating thought after thought, some of which are functional and some of which encourage entification,

then the power of the latter type of thoughts (those generated by the thinking mind) simply hold no energy to convince or disturb. And, concomitantly, they diminish in both frequency and volume.

But they never go away entirely.

That may seem like an issue: What?! I'm still gonna have thoughts telling me I'm a separate self!?! But it won't be. It really won't be.

A comparison may help.

If you see a woman being sawed in half, screaming her lungs out in pain and agony, you are shocked, appalled, terrified.

If you see this same woman being sawed in half, screaming her lungs out, AND there is an understanding that it is just a magic act, there may well be a feeling of shock, amazement, perhaps even a bit of terror (if she and the magician are good actors). But in this case it isn't taken seriously. It seems to be happening and resultingly, emotions arise in response to it. But the critical difference is that the emotions (and the thoughts behind them) are not attached to. They are not held as if it were Real.

THAT is the primary difference between attaching to the workings of the thinking mind and simply seeing the movement of it. When attachment ceases, everything changes 180 degrees. You're still there, where you were before, but the you that is there is not the you that was there whilst engaged in the attachments. The world goes on, events go on, and you go on, but in a radically ... transformed ... way.

And how this happens, the mechanism (or in zen "the fundamental vehicle") by which Transformation arises, well, it's anyone's guess.

 
At March 17, 2007, Blogger endofthedream said...

Mikedoe and Dan...

Books can be used to reach an intellectual understanding or they can be used to build a false delusion of understanding or they can be used to maybe confirm an intuitive understanding.

I would phrase it as "an intellecutal or false understanding" can arise from reading books (or listening to a talk). This can even happen as a result of meditation, prayer, chanting, bowing, whatever practice is engaged in.


What books cannot do is give you an intuitive understanding and that is what Buddhism actually requires.


And what does give you that? What generates it? How does it happen?


In many ways Buddhism is about moving from cognition to intuition.

Absolutely. This is true for all the great spiritual traditions.


It is possible to reach an intellectual understanding of something and not have an intuitive understanding of something - an intellectual buddhist or a masturbator who believes he is a great lover.

Most assuredly.


Books and blogs like this can be nothing more than the intellect amusing itself. They can also be a way in which the intellect can guide a person into actions which lead into intuitive understanding.


And one of those actions is questioning, inquiring, examining, exploring, both in thought and non-thought. Awakening doesn't REQUIRE meditation. It usually (although not always) REQUIRES a meditative mind, a meditative approach to thought and what thought says is so.

Reading a book on sex positions may be helpful in exploring sex more fully if you have a partner - but it is of very limited benefit.

Poor analogy. Sex positions basically involve an other. Looking into the true nature of the self does not. While it may be engaged in in the presence of another (or others), it is an individual exploration.


I have a book on judo at home which I bought because I do Judo. I bought it 2 months ago and it remains unread. I learn a lot about Judo intuitively when I am sparring with a guy who is 5ft8 weights 210lbs and is keen to flatten me.

Same thing. You're comparing apples and oranges. Meditative inquiry doesn't require others. No one is really sure how awakening happens, but it is clear that it can happen from a variety of sources, practices, actions. And dialog can most assuredly be a part of that. Of course, if the dialog is engaged in as spiritual "entertainment" (like "I like to argue so I'll post stuff")...what will be gotten will be exactly commensurate with what was put in: nothing.

 
At March 17, 2007, Blogger karen said...

Hi all,

I didn't realize that endofthe dream and mudderpugger had asked me a question on this particular post. My practice if it can be called that is that I kind of immerse myself in whatever is coming up. For instance, I had to guide two older people via cell phone through a fairly large city to a hospital where I work. I could feel myself getting very frustrated and angry. After 30 minutes of trying to head them in the right direction, I can't even go into how I just wanted to shoot my brains out after I got off the phone. But I don't run away from that. I don't always verbalize it, but I let myself really feel just how frustrated I am. I just give in to the moment. And then something weird happens and it passes without me killing anyone and I'm ok. But it isn't about me being ok. That would just be using a method to get "better". It is just accepting that sometimes there are just annoying things in life and you may as well suck it up and deal with it. That is what I do daily, what I do formally is a little different. I just sit and I wait. I don't have any expectations of the sitting or myself. I don't really concentrate on anything. I think the "choiceless awareness" is probably the best term to describe what I do. It can be done all day long, but I do it on a regular basis at specific times because I am the kind of person who needs to have time alone. I don't always sit in a prescribed posture except for in the morning before I leave for work. But I have to say I'm just so thrilled that there are other people out there who like and understand what Krishnamurti talked about. It's been a long, kind of alone road for me because there aren't a lot of people in my neck of the woods that are familiar with him or fans of him. I just think if you can study what he talked about and not try to figure it out, but just let it ferment a little, he makes the most common sense.

 
At March 17, 2007, Blogger karen said...

mudderpugger,

Yes, I did practice Yoga first. I started when my kids were babies and I used to watch Lillias, Yoga and You on PBS. From there I found out about K. I do not know who Eric Schiffman is, but I will look him up.
Thanks,
Karen

 
At March 17, 2007, Blogger endofthedream said...

After 30 minutes of trying to head them in the right direction, I can't even go into how I just wanted to shoot my brains out after I got off the phone. But I don't run away from that. I don't always verbalize it, but I let myself really feel just how frustrated I am. I just give in to the moment. And then something weird happens and it passes without me killing anyone and I'm ok.

Yes. Whatever we resist, persists.


But it isn't about me being ok. That would just be using a method to get "better".

How about so you can feel better, more at peace, calm, sane? Is that not a reason to do it?


It is just accepting that sometimes there are just annoying things in life and you may as well suck it up and deal with it.


There are no annoying things in life. Annoyance, like love, joy, anger, lust, ... happens. Things are not, in and of themselves, annoying or not-annoying. The annoyance is coming out of us, when a object is in conflict with our mental architecture.



That is what I do daily, what I do formally is a little different. I just sit and I wait. I don't have any expectations of the sitting or myself. I don't really concentrate on anything. I think the "choiceless awareness" is probably the best term to describe what I do.

Excellent!

It can be done all day long, but I do it on a regular basis at specific times because I am the kind of person who needs to have time alone. I don't always sit in a prescribed posture except for in the morning before I leave for work. But I have to say I'm just so thrilled that there are other people out there who like and understand what Krishnamurti talked about. It's been a long, kind of alone road for me because there aren't a lot of people in my neck of the woods that are familiar with him or fans of him. I just think if you can study what he talked about and not try to figure it out, but just let it ferment a little, he makes the most common sense.


We each find those who speak to us, with whom there is a resonance. It is a very individual, highly personal, thing. And some are driven to "study" what a person says. It's not like they have a choice. When that is grokked, and transformation is operative, then there is an acceptance of what is. In that ... space ... there are no issues. There is simply life, moving, doing its thing.

 
At March 17, 2007, Blogger MudderPugger said...

Speaking of
sex manuals....

 
At March 17, 2007, Blogger karen said...

endofthedream,
You are right, there are no annoying things, there is this "I" being annoyed by things. It always comes back to us. It is me making the judgement that something should or should not be happening.
Karen

 
At March 17, 2007, Blogger endofthedream said...

You are right, there are no annoying things, there is this "I" being annoyed by things. It always comes back to us. It is me making the judgement that something should or should not be happening.

Karen, here's what I'm getting at:
is there, actually, the "I" that you refer to? You say there is a "me making the judgment." What exactly is this "me"? What comprises it? Where is it located? Do you know that there is this "me," or is it, possibly, an unexamined belief and not really extant at all? Perhaps this "me" - which causes so much trouble - is a fiction, a story. Just something to consider if the interest is there.

 
At March 17, 2007, Blogger karen said...

The me that is getting annoyed is something that is perpetuated by expectations and the conditioning that we inherit as human beings. It's really weird that I'm being given the chance to write and think of these subjects, like this is what I need to do at this time. I just came back from this lecture and the monk that gave it was explaining or trying to explain that the ONLY relationship you have is with you, yourself. He said that whenever you come up against another person that bothers you or you are turned off by something in their personality, you are really coming up against something in yourself that you haven't acknowledged as being a part of yourself. He went into more depth than that and the way he explained it was really kind of mind blowing. So much so that my head is in a strange place right now.

 
At March 18, 2007, Blogger endofthedream said...

I just came back from this lecture and the monk that gave it was explaining or trying to explain that the ONLY relationship you have is with you, yourself. He said that whenever you come up against another person that bothers you or you are turned off by something in their personality, you are really coming up against something in yourself that you haven't acknowledged as being a part of yourself. He went into more depth than that and the way he explained it was really kind of mind blowing. So much so that my head is in a strange place right now.


Sure, I get that. The monk dude was, from my experience, correct. You're familiar with K's oft-repeated statement "You are the world." It wasn't meant poetically or metaphorically. It was literal.

The zen masters and sages always point to this: there really is NO ONE else but you.

I know, it seems hard to see that, you being over "there" and me being over "here." Separate. Apparently. So how can there be ONLY you? (And this is related to K's comment about "the other that anatman raised yesterday.)

It's all about where all this is happening, where it is arising, the space, the field, the plane, out of which all of THIS arises and Karen's entry point into it.

You said your head was in a strange place right now, and maybe this is not where you want to go. If and when you do, write me.

~ Hugs

 
At March 18, 2007, Blogger karen said...

I don't mind my head being in the strange place at all. I can't describe how I felt when I left the lecture, but both my friend and myself were deeply touched by what this man said. I need time to digest what he said. Something in me knows that what he said is absolutley true and the way he said it made you realize it. I don't want to sound like I'm off in left field but what he said was very profound. It was like being hit in the side of the head with a baseball bat. Aside from what I have taken away from some of K's writings, combined with sitting, I don't know that I have been affected l ike this before.

 
At August 20, 2007, Blogger Guzmán. said...

Jiddu Krishnamurti ;

“There are three monks, who had been sitting in deep meditation for many years amidst the Himalayan snow peaks, never speaking a word, in utter silence. One morning, one of the three suddenly speaks up and says, ‘What a lovely morning this is.’ And he falls silent again. Five years of silence pass, when all at once the second monk speaks up and says, ‘But we could do with some rain.’ There is silence among them for another five years, when suddenly the third monk says, ‘Why can’t you two stop chattering?”


http://www.katinkahesselink.net/kr/jokes.html

http://seaunaluzparaustedmismo.blogspot.com/

 

Post a Comment

<< Home