#krishnamurti — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #krishnamurti, aggregated by home.social.
-
To read the pages of the past, you must know yourself in the present, for through the present the past is revealed. With you is the key that opens the door to reality; none can offer it, for it is yours. Through your own awareness, you can open the door; through your own self-awareness only can you read the rich volume of self-knowledge, for in it are the hints and the openings, the hindrances and the blockages that prevent and yet lead to the timeless, to the eternal.
From Collected Works, Vol. 3
-
To read the pages of the past, you must know yourself in the present, for through the present the past is revealed. With you is the key that opens the door to reality; none can offer it, for it is yours. Through your own awareness, you can open the door; through your own self-awareness only can you read the rich volume of self-knowledge, for in it are the hints and the openings, the hindrances and the blockages that prevent and yet lead to the timeless, to the eternal.
From Collected Works, Vol. 3
-
Atpažinimas reiškia, kad yra patiriantis subjektas, o patiriantis subjektas visada priklauso laikui. Kad kažką atpažintų, mintis turi tai patirti; o jei ji tai patyrė, tai tampa žinomu dalyku. Žinomas dalykas nėra amžinas. Žinomas dalykas visada yra laiko tinklo ribose. Mintis negali pažinti amžinybės; tai nėra dar vienas įgijimas, dar vienas pasiekimas; į ją neįmanoma eiti. Tai yra būties būsena, kurioje nėra nei minties, nei laiko.
From Commentaries on Living Series 1
-
Atpažinimas reiškia, kad yra patiriantis subjektas, o patiriantis subjektas visada priklauso laikui. Kad kažką atpažintų, mintis turi tai patirti; o jei ji tai patyrė, tai tampa žinomu dalyku. Žinomas dalykas nėra amžinas. Žinomas dalykas visada yra laiko tinklo ribose. Mintis negali pažinti amžinybės; tai nėra dar vienas įgijimas, dar vienas pasiekimas; į ją neįmanoma eiti. Tai yra būties būsena, kurioje nėra nei minties, nei laiko.
From Commentaries on Living Series 1
-
Atpažinimas reiškia, kad yra patiriantis subjektas, o patiriantis subjektas visada priklauso laikui. Kad kažką atpažintų, mintis turi tai patirti; o jei ji tai patyrė, tai tampa žinomu dalyku. Žinomas dalykas nėra amžinas. Žinomas dalykas visada yra laiko tinklo ribose. Mintis negali pažinti amžinybės; tai nėra dar vienas įgijimas, dar vienas pasiekimas; į ją neįmanoma eiti. Tai yra būties būsena, kurioje nėra nei minties, nei laiko.
From Commentaries on Living Series 1
-
Atpažinimas reiškia, kad yra patiriantis subjektas, o patiriantis subjektas visada priklauso laikui. Kad kažką atpažintų, mintis turi tai patirti; o jei ji tai patyrė, tai tampa žinomu dalyku. Žinomas dalykas nėra amžinas. Žinomas dalykas visada yra laiko tinklo ribose. Mintis negali pažinti amžinybės; tai nėra dar vienas įgijimas, dar vienas pasiekimas; į ją neįmanoma eiti. Tai yra būties būsena, kurioje nėra nei minties, nei laiko.
From Commentaries on Living Series 1
-
Recognition implies the experiencer, and the experiencer is always of time. To recognise something, thought must have experienced it; and if it has experienced it, then it is the known. The known is not the timeless. The known is always within the net of time. Thought cannot know the timeless; it is not a further acquisition, a further achievement; there is no going towards it. It is a state of being in which thought, time, is not.
From Commentaries on Living Series 1
-
Recognition implies the experiencer, and the experiencer is always of time. To recognise something, thought must have experienced it; and if it has experienced it, then it is the known. The known is not the timeless. The known is always within the net of time. Thought cannot know the timeless; it is not a further acquisition, a further achievement; there is no going towards it. It is a state of being in which thought, time, is not.
From Commentaries on Living Series 1
-
Recognition implies the experiencer, and the experiencer is always of time. To recognise something, thought must have experienced it; and if it has experienced it, then it is the known. The known is not the timeless. The known is always within the net of time. Thought cannot know the timeless; it is not a further acquisition, a further achievement; there is no going towards it. It is a state of being in which thought, time, is not.
From Commentaries on Living Series 1
-
Mirti žinomam reiškia neturėti vakarykščio tęstinumo. Tai, kas turi tęstinumą, yra tik atmintis. Tai, kas neturi tęstinumo, nėra nei nuolatinis, nei laikinas. Nuolatinumas ar tęstinumas atsiranda tik tada, kai yra baimė dėl laikino pobūdžio. Ar gali būti sąmonės kaip tęstinumo pabaiga, mirtis visiškam tapimo jausmui, nesusirenkant vėl pačiame mirties akte? Šis tapimo jausmas yra tik tada, kai yra prisiminimas apie tai, kas buvo ir kas turėtų būti, o tada dabartis naudojama kaip perėjimas tarp šių dviejų dalykų. Mirtis žinomam reiškia visišką proto ramybę.
From Commentaries on Living Series 3
-
Mirti žinomam reiškia neturėti vakarykščio tęstinumo. Tai, kas turi tęstinumą, yra tik atmintis. Tai, kas neturi tęstinumo, nėra nei nuolatinis, nei laikinas. Nuolatinumas ar tęstinumas atsiranda tik tada, kai yra baimė dėl laikino pobūdžio. Ar gali būti sąmonės kaip tęstinumo pabaiga, mirtis visiškam tapimo jausmui, nesusirenkant vėl pačiame mirties akte? Šis tapimo jausmas yra tik tada, kai yra prisiminimas apie tai, kas buvo ir kas turėtų būti, o tada dabartis naudojama kaip perėjimas tarp šių dviejų dalykų. Mirtis žinomam reiškia visišką proto ramybę.
From Commentaries on Living Series 3
-
Mirti žinomam reiškia neturėti vakarykščio tęstinumo. Tai, kas turi tęstinumą, yra tik atmintis. Tai, kas neturi tęstinumo, nėra nei nuolatinis, nei laikinas. Nuolatinumas ar tęstinumas atsiranda tik tada, kai yra baimė dėl laikino pobūdžio. Ar gali būti sąmonės kaip tęstinumo pabaiga, mirtis visiškam tapimo jausmui, nesusirenkant vėl pačiame mirties akte? Šis tapimo jausmas yra tik tada, kai yra prisiminimas apie tai, kas buvo ir kas turėtų būti, o tada dabartis naudojama kaip perėjimas tarp šių dviejų dalykų. Mirtis žinomam reiškia visišką proto ramybę.
From Commentaries on Living Series 3
-
Mirti žinomam reiškia neturėti vakarykščio tęstinumo. Tai, kas turi tęstinumą, yra tik atmintis. Tai, kas neturi tęstinumo, nėra nei nuolatinis, nei laikinas. Nuolatinumas ar tęstinumas atsiranda tik tada, kai yra baimė dėl laikino pobūdžio. Ar gali būti sąmonės kaip tęstinumo pabaiga, mirtis visiškam tapimo jausmui, nesusirenkant vėl pačiame mirties akte? Šis tapimo jausmas yra tik tada, kai yra prisiminimas apie tai, kas buvo ir kas turėtų būti, o tada dabartis naudojama kaip perėjimas tarp šių dviejų dalykų. Mirtis žinomam reiškia visišką proto ramybę.
From Commentaries on Living Series 3
-
To die to the known is to have no continuity of yesterday. That which has continuance is only memory. What has no continuity is neither permanent nor impermanent. Permanency or continuity comes into being only when there is fear of transiency. Can there be an ending of consciousness as continuity, a dying to the total feeling of becoming without gathering again in the very act of dying? There is this feeling of becoming only when there is the memory of what has been and what should be, and then the present is used as a passage between the two. Dying to the known is the complete stillness of the mind.
From Commentaries on Living Series 3
-
To die to the known is to have no continuity of yesterday. That which has continuance is only memory. What has no continuity is neither permanent nor impermanent. Permanency or continuity comes into being only when there is fear of transiency. Can there be an ending of consciousness as continuity, a dying to the total feeling of becoming without gathering again in the very act of dying? There is this feeling of becoming only when there is the memory of what has been and what should be, and then the present is used as a passage between the two. Dying to the known is the complete stillness of the mind.
From Commentaries on Living Series 3
-
To die to the known is to have no continuity of yesterday. That which has continuance is only memory. What has no continuity is neither permanent nor impermanent. Permanency or continuity comes into being only when there is fear of transiency. Can there be an ending of consciousness as continuity, a dying to the total feeling of becoming without gathering again in the very act of dying? There is this feeling of becoming only when there is the memory of what has been and what should be, and then the present is used as a passage between the two. Dying to the known is the complete stillness of the mind.
From Commentaries on Living Series 3
-
Dying is the dying to the things that you know, not only to the unpleasant things known, but to the pleasant also. You would like to put aside or die to the memories of pain, to the insults, but you would like to keep the memories which are pleasant, which give you satisfaction. But to put an end, to die to the pleasure as well as to the pain, you can do if you give your attention completely to every thought, to every feeling – attention, not contradiction, not saying, ‘I don't like it,’ or ‘I like it,’ just giving attention.
From Collected Works, Vol. 16
-
The past is the background of conditioned thought-action, which is dominating and controlling the present and thereby creating a predetermined future. An act born of fear creates certain memories or self-protective resistances which determine future action. Thus, the past controlling the present is overshadowing the future. So a chain is formed which holds thought in bondage. The choiceless awareness of this process is the beginning of true freedom.
From Collected Works, Vol. 3
-
We always live in the past or in the future. Especially as you get older, the past becomes extraordinarily significant, and the future is only what you call death. So you go to the past and avoid the future – how happy you were, what a lovely youth you had, or what a miserable existence you had. So we live between the past and the future. If you are still young, you still have the future to make something of, and you shape it according to the past. So you are caught between the past and the future. Observe your own minds, your own life; do not merely hear what I am saying, but actually observe your own existence. You will see how divided it is between the past and the future, and if it is not divided, you are merely living in the immediate, from day to day, making the best of that. Because there may be a war, an economic revolution, a social upheaval – anything may happen tomorrow; tomorrow is uncertain.
From Collected Works, Vol. 13
-
As you can observe in yourself, you want to get rid of fear. All your life is an escape from fear. Your gods, your churches, your moralities are based on fear, and to understand that, you have to understand how this fear comes about. You have done something in the past, and you do not want another to find out – that is one form of fear. You are afraid of the future because you have no job, or you are frightened of something else. So you are afraid of the past, and you are afraid of the future. Fear comes when thought looks back to things that have happened in the past, or to events that may happen in the future. Thought is responsible for this. You have very carefully avoided thinking about death, but it is always there. You do not want to think about it, because the moment you do, you are afraid. And because you are afraid, you have theories about it; you believe in resurrection or reincarnation – you have dozens of beliefs, all because you are afraid and all of which arise from thought. Thought creates and sustains the fear of yesterday and of tomorrow.
From Beyond Violence
-
We carry on like machines with our tiresome daily routine. How eagerly the mind accepts a pattern of existence, and how tenaciously it clings to it! As by a driven nail, the mind is held together by idea, and around the idea it lives and has its being. The mind is never free, pliable, for it is always anchored; it moves within the radius, narrow or wide, of its own centre. From its centre it dare not wander, and when it does, it is lost in fear. Fear is not of the unknown, but of the loss of the known. The unknown does not incite fear, but dependence on the known does. Fear is always with desire, the desire for the more or for the less. The mind, with its incessant weaving of patterns, is the maker of time; and with time there is fear, hope and death.
From Commentaries on Living Series 2
-
Take one of your fears and go into it very deliberately, watching it. See if you can watch it, objectify it and remain with it, not escape from it. Look at it, go into it step by step, and find the root. Then take another fear. Are the roots different, or is there only one root with different branches, like a tree? If I can understand that one root completely, it is finished, whether the fear of death, of loneliness, of losing my job, fear of my not being able to give a talk tomorrow, the fear of falling ill. Are they the various movements of this central fear? For me, there is only one fear, the root of it, like an expanding tree. If the mind can go into it deeply, into the very complex root system, then examining particular fears has no value. Now, can the mind look not at the various expressions of the root but the whole root system? It can observe the root system completely only when the mind is not concerned with solving a particular fear.
From Facing a World in Crisis
-
To observe the thing called violence without division, without the observer, to see the conditioning, the structure of belief, the opinions, the prejudices, is to see what you are; that is ‘what is’. When you observe it and there is a division, then you say, ‘It is impossible to change.’ Man has lived like this for millennia, and you go on living in this way. Saying, ‘It is not possible,’ deprives one of energy. Only when you see what is possible in the highest form, then you have plenty of energy. So one has to observe actually ‘what is’, not the image you have about ‘what is’, but what you actually are, never saying it is ugly or beautiful.
From Beyond Violence
-
There is a way of looking into ourselves without fear, without danger; it is to look without any condemnation, without any justification, just to look, not to interpret, not to judge, not to evaluate. To do that, the mind must be eager to learn in its observation of what actually is. What is the danger in ‘what is’? Human beings are violent; that is actually ‘what is’, and the danger they have brought about in this world is the result of this violence; it is the outcome of fear. What is dangerous about observing it and trying to completely eradicate that fear so that we may bring about a different society, different values? There is a great beauty in observation, in seeing things as they are, psychologically, inwardly, which does not mean that one accepts things as they are, which does not mean that one rejects or wants to do something about ‘what is’; the very perception of ‘what is’ brings about its own mutation. But one must know the art of looking, and the art of looking is never the introspective art or the analytical art, but just observing without any choice.
From The Flight of the Eagle
-
#Krishnamurti en entretien avec un érudit bouddhiste : la #méditation bouddhiste originale n'est *pas* une histoire de concentration ou de technique, la #conscience ne peut pas être travaillée. Croire ça est une dérive moderne. « Toute méditation est un processus qui enferme. »
Alors, comment advient la conscience ?
-
Why do we have ideals? First, we hope that by having an ideal, we shall be able to get rid of, alter, modify or change the fact. I am violent, and I use the ideal of non-violence to help me get rid of my violence. Now look at what has happened! The fact is I am violent, and the ideal is not a fact at all, it is verbal, an idea; and with that idea I hope I can get rid of my violence. The ideal is created because I want to escape from the fact, and so I have created a contradiction. Whereas, if I look at the fact, the fact that I am violent, I can deal with that fact. Either I like violence, or I don’t like it. And as most people love violence, they keep it. And if it is a fact and you like it, it is all right; you keep it, be violent and talk about peace and all the rest of it, but know that, by doing this, you are deceiving others and yourself. But if you don’t like it, why have the ideal? If you don't like it, you can deal with it now.
From Collected Works Vol. 15
-
Our present morality is based on the past or the future, on the traditional or on ‘what ought to be’. ‘What ought to be’ is the ideal in opposition to what has been, the future in conflict with the past. Non-violence is the ideal, the ‘what should be’, and the ‘what has been’ is violence. The ‘what has been’ projects ‘what should be’; the ideal is homemade, it is projected by its own opposite, the actual. The antithesis is an extension of the thesis; the opposite contains the element of its own opposite. Being violent, the mind projects its opposite, the ideal of non-violence. It is said that the ideal helps to overcome its own opposite, but does it? Isn't the ideal an avoidance, an escape from the ‘what has been’ or from ‘what is’? The conflict between the actual and the ideal is a means of postponing the understanding of the actual, and this conflict only introduces another problem, which helps to cover up the immediate problem.
From Commentaries on Living Series 2
-
What matters is not the ideal, but the fact and your capacity to face the fact. You cannot face the fact of your anger, your violence, as long as you have an ideal, because the ideal is fictitious, fallacious; it has no reality. To understand your violence, you must give your whole attention to it, and you cannot give your whole attention to it if you have an ideal. Idealism is merely one of the habits that we have – ‘He is a noble man, he has ideals and conforms to them’ – you know all the nonsense we talk. The simple fact is that we are violent, and it is only when we look at our violence without justification or condemnation that we can go into it. The moment one’s mind ceases to justify or condemn violence, it is already free to examine the structure of violence.
From Collected Works, Vol. 11
-
To suppress anger by the exertion of will is to transfer anger to a different level, giving it a different name, but it is still part of violence. To be free from violence, which is not the cultivation of non-violence, there must be the understanding of desire. If you go into anger very deeply, not just brush it aside, what is involved? Why is one angry? Because one is hurt, someone has said an unkind thing; and when someone says a flattering thing, you are pleased. Why are you hurt? Self-importance, is it not? And why is there self-importance? Because one has an idea, a symbol of oneself, an image of oneself, what one should be, what one is or what one should not be. Why does one create an image about oneself? Because one has never studied what one is, actually. We think we should be this or that, the ideal, the hero, the example. What awakens anger is that our ideal, the idea we have of ourselves, is attacked. And our idea about ourselves is our escape from the fact of what we are.
From What Are You Doing With Your Life?
-
One of the most common expressions of violence is anger. When my wife or sister is attacked, I say I am righteously angry; when my country is attacked, my ideas, my principles, my way of life, I am righteously angry. I am also angry when my habits or my petty opinions are attacked. When you tread on my toes or insult me, I get angry. If you run away with my wife and I get jealous, that jealousy is called righteous because I think she is my property. And all this anger is morally justified, and to kill for my country is also justified. So when we are talking about anger, which is a part of violence, do we look at anger in terms of righteous and unrighteous anger according to our own inclinations and environmental drive, or do we see only anger? Is there righteous anger ever, or is there only anger?
From Total Freedom
-
Violence is not only in the killing, in the bomb, in revolutionary change through bloodshed; it is deeper and more subtle. Conformity and imitation are the indications of violence; imposition and the acceptance of authority are indications of violence; ambition and competition are expressions of this aggression and cruelty, and comparison breeds envy with its animosity and hatred. Where there is conflict, inner or outer, there is the ground for violence. Division in all its forms brings about conflict and pain. You know all this; you have read about the actions of violence, you have seen it in yourself and around you, and you have heard it. You have knowledge of all this and perhaps more, yet violence has not ended – why? The explanations and causes of such behaviour are of no real significance. If you are indulging in them, you are wasting your energy, which you need to transcend violence. You need all your energy to meet and go beyond the energy that is being wasted in violence. Controlling violence is another form of violence, for the controller is the controlled. In total attention, the summation of all energy, violence in all its forms comes to an end. Attention is not a word, an abstract formula of thought, but an act in daily life. Action is not an ideology, but if action is the outcome of it, it leads to violence.
From The Beauty of Life – Krishnamurti’s Journal
-
We are violent. Throughout existence, human beings have been violent and are violent. I want to find out, as a human being, how to transcend this violence, how to go beyond it. What am I to do? I see what violence has done in the world, how it has destroyed every form of relationship, how it has brought deep agony and misery in oneself — I see all that. And I say to myself, ‘I want to live a really peaceful life in which there is a deep abundance of love—all the violence must go.’ Now, what have I to do?
From Beyond Violence
-
Love has no continuity; it cannot be carried over to tomorrow; it has no future. What has is memory, and memories are ashes of everything dead and buried. Love has no tomorrow; it cannot be caught in time and made respectable. It is there when time is not. It has no promise, no hope; hope breeds despair. It belongs to no God, and so to no thought and feeling. It is not conjured up by the brain. It lives and dies each minute. Is a terrible thing, for love is destruction. It is destruction without tomorrow.
From Krishnamurti’s Notebook
-
What takes place when there is no loneliness, when there is complete self-sufficiency? When there is no dependency, what takes place? I love you; you may not love me. I love you – that is good enough. I don’t need your response, that you love me – I don’t care. Like a flower, it is there for you to look at, to smell, to see the beauty of. The flower doesn’t say, ‘Love me’ – it is there. Therefore, it is related to everything. In that state of self-sufficiency – not in the ugly sense but in the great depth and beauty of sufficiency – there is no loneliness or ambition. That is really love. Therefore, love is related to nature. If you want it, there it is; if you don’t want it, it doesn’t matter. That is the beauty of it.
From To Be Human
-
One has to go into the question of what love is. Most of us have different concepts, ideas, opinions: sacred love and profane love; love of the one and love of the many; can you love the many if you love the one? And we think we know love because we are jealous. To us, jealousy is part of love. You love your wife or husband, your children, the family – all that business – and there is jealousy, envy, ambition and greed. You don’t treat the family as a unit of convenience, but the family becomes strongly important, and the family then becomes antisocial. Where there is jealousy, envy, greed, ambition, competition, there is no love. We also know that the word ‘love’ is not the fact of love. And if there is no love in our heart, in our being, do what we will, there will always be misery and conflict. So, how does the mind or heart come upon the strange thing called love?
From Collected Works, Vol. 16
-
How can I love you, or you love me, if I am attached to you? My attachment is based on my pursuit of pleasure, which you give me, and on my image of you. I am attached to that image of you, and you are attached to the image of me. And the image is the past, the response of experience and knowledge. Is love the past? Is love experience? Is love memory? Is love the reaction to that memory as pleasure? So, one discovers, or the mind comes upon the fact, that where there is attachment of any kind, there is no love. This is not a statement, an idea, but an actual fact that the mind has discovered, which the mind, having an insight into attachment, sees the truth of. And seeing the truth of it, it is not occupied with the person, or with the furniture, or with the idea, and therefore it has its own energy. It is that quality of energy that is love. Therefore, love can never be hurt, love can never be jealous, never lonely; it can never ask to be loved.
From Facing a World in Crisis
-
If you examine yourself, why are you attached to your wife or husband, to your money, to your house, to your property, to your ideas? Why? Because without that person, you are lost, you are empty; without property, without a name, you are nothing; without your bank account, without your ideas, what are you? An empty shell, aren’t you? So, because you are afraid of being nothing, you are attached to something, and being attached, with all its problems, with its fears, with its cruelties, with its anxieties and frustrations, you try to become detached, you try to renounce property, renounce your family, renounce your ideas. But you have not really solved the problem, which is the fear of being nothing, and that is why you are attached.
From Collected Works, Vol. 4
-
Images play an extraordinarily important part in one’s life. Apparently, very few of us are free from all forms of image. The freedom from images is real freedom. In that freedom, there is no division brought about by images. If one is a Hindu, born in India with all the conditioning to which one is subject, the conditioning of the race, or of a particular group with its superstitions, with its religious beliefs, dogmas and rituals – the whole structure of that society – one lives with that complex of images, which is one’s conditioning. And however much one may talk about brotherhood, unity and wholeness, it is merely empty words having no actual meaning. But if one frees oneself from all that imposition, all the conditioning of that superstitious nonsense, then one is breaking down the image. And also in one’s relationship, if one is married or lives with somebody, is it possible not to create an image at all, not to record an incident which may be pleasurable or painful, in that particular relationship, not to record either the insult or the flattery, the encouragement or discouragement?
From The Network of Thought
-
Please inquire, question and doubt whether it is possible to live with another in complete harmony without any dissension or division. If you really, deeply inquire, you will find that you have created an image about your wife or husband, and they have created an image about you. Each has built an image, a picture of the other. These two pictures, images, are in relationship with each other. Where there is an image about another, there must be conflict. I am quite sure you all have an image of the speaker. Why? You don’t know the speaker. You can never know the speaker, but you have created an image about him: that he is religious or nonreligious, that he is stupid or clever, he is beautiful, he is this or that. And with that image, you look at the person. But the image is not the person. The image is the reputation, and reputations are easily created, good or bad. The human brain, thought, creates the image. The image is the conclusion, and we live by images and imagination. The making of pictures has no place in love.
From How to Find Peace
-
Relationship means direct contact, immediately in the present, at the same level, with the same intensity, with the same passion. And that passion and intensity at the same level cannot exist if I have an image of you and you have an image of me. Full stop. It is for you to see if you have an image of somebody else. Obviously, you have. Therefore, apply, work to find out. That is, if you really want a relationship with another – which I doubt anybody does; we are all so terribly selfish and enclosed – if you really want a relationship with another, you have to understand the whole structure of the past. When that is gone, you have a relationship which is totally new all the time. And that new relationship is love – not the old, you know, beating the drum. What is the relationship of love, which is the new, which is the different dimension, which is not known, which cannot be captured by the old – what is that relationship in daily life?
From The Awakening of Intelligence
-
What is our relationship when we live together in a house, as husband, wife, friend, or whoever it is? What is our relationship? Is it based on thought? Which is also feeling – the two cannot be divided. If it is based on thought, relationship becomes mechanistic. And for most of us, the relationship we have with each other is mechanistic. By mechanistic, I mean the image created by thought about you and about me – the images that each one creates and defends, over a number of years or over a number of days. You have built an image about me, and I have built an image about you, which is the product of thought. The image becomes the defence, the resistance, the calculation, building a wall around myself, and as I build a wall around you, you build a wall around yourself, and you build a wall around me. This what we call relationship, and it is a fact.
From Facing a World in Crisis
-
You cannot live without relationship; life is relationship. However much one may want to isolate oneself for neurotic reasons or for some form of specialisation, one is still in relationship. So relationship is of the highest importance. There is no relationship if your daily activity is centred around your own egotistic activities. There is no relationship if you build a wall around yourself because you have been hurt, or because you cannot have what you want, or because you are trying to fulfil yourself in a particular activity. There is no relationship if you are tethered to a strong belief or a conclusion, either one given by another or one you have put together yourself. There is no relationship if you belong to one group as opposed to another, or if you have committed yourself to one course of action based on a rational or irrational conclusion. There is no relationship if you have an image about yourself or about another.
From The Whole Movement of Life Is Learning
-
We never see the world as a whole because we are so fragmented, so terribly limited, so petty. We never have the feeling of wholeness, where the things of the sea, the things of the earth, nature, the sky, the universe, are part of us. Not imagined – you can go off into some kind of fancy and imagine that you are the universe, and then you become cuckoo. But break down this small, self-centred interest, have nothing of that, and from there you can move infinitely. And meditation is this, not sitting cross-legged, or standing on your head, or doing whatever one does, but having the feeling of the complete wholeness and unity of life. And that can come only when there is love and compassion.
From This Light in Oneself
-
At present, a part of the mind is trying to capture the whole, is it not? One part is struggling against another part, one desire against another desire. The hidden mind is in conflict with the open; violence is attempting to become non-violent. Frustration is followed by hope, fulfilment and another frustration. That is all we know. There is the ceaseless pursuit of fulfilment, in whose very shadow is frustration, so we never know or experience wholeness of being. The body is against feeling; feeling is against thought; thought is pursuing the what should be, the ideal. We are broken up into fragments, and by bringing the various fragments together, we hope to make the whole. Is it ever possible to do this? This feeling of the totality of your being, of your body, mind and heart, is not the bringing together of all these fragments. You cannot make contradictory desires into a harmonious whole. To attempt to do so is an act of the mind, and the mind itself is only a part. A part cannot create the whole.
From Commentaries on Living Series 3
-
To be attentive implies that there is no distraction. When you are attentive, you take in the whole, not the part; you see the people, the colours, the light, the shapes. You are aware and therefore attentive. In that attention, there is neither the observer nor the observed, because there your whole being, your mind, your body, your nerves, your ears, your eyes – everything is attentive. Therefore, there is no division. In that state of attention, there is an observation of oneself. Therefore, there is no condemnation of oneself. Therefore, you are learning.
From Collected Works, Vol. 11 -
Be wise and definite about your health; don’t let emotion and sentiment interfere with your health or belittle your action. There are too many influences and pressures that constantly shape the mind and heart; be aware of them, cut through them, and don’t be a slave to them. To be a slave is to be mediocre. Be awake, aflame.
From Happy Is the One Who Is Nothing
-
If the intellect is the product of the brain, it must always be conditioned by memory and knowledge. The intellect can project very far, but it is still tethered. The intellect can seek freedom; it can never find it. It can be free only within the radius of its own tether; in itself it is limited. And freedom must be beyond the capacity of the intellect; it must be something outside the field.
From Tradition and Revolution
-
Contentment comes with the awareness of ‘what is’, and simplicity with the freedom from ‘what is’. It is well to be outwardly simple, but it is far more important to be inwardly simple and clear. Clarity does not come through a determined and purposeful mind; the mind cannot create it. The mind can adjust itself, can arrange and put its thoughts in order, but this is not clarity or simplicity.
From Commentaries on Living Series 1
-
Viduje, savo mintyse ir širdyse, esame labai sumišę. Nėra jokio saugumo nei mums, nei ateities kartoms. Religijos padalijo žmones į krikščionis, induistus, musulmonus, budistus ir pan. Atsižvelgiant į visa tai, stebint objektyviai, ramiai ir be išankstinio nusistatymo, natūralu, kad svarbu visiems kartu apie tai pagalvoti. Mąstyti kartu, neturint nuomonių, prieštaraujančių kitoms nuomonėms, neturint vienos išvados, prieštaraujančios kitai išvadai, vieno idealo, prieštaraujančio kitam idealui, bet mąstant kartu ir žiūrint, ką mes, žmonės, galime padaryti. Krize nėra ekonomikos pasaulyje, nei politiniame pasaulyje; krizė yra sąmonėje. Manau, kad labai nedaugelis iš mūsų tai supranta.
From The Network of Thought
#Krishnamurti
#meditation
#phylosophy
#day62
#life
#consciousness
#lt -
Inwardly, in our minds and hearts, we are very confused. There is no security for ourselves or for future generations. Religions have divided human beings as Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Considering all this, observing objectively, calmly without prejudice, it is naturally important that together we think about it all. Think together, not having opinions opposing other sets of opinions, not having one conclusion against another conclusion, one ideal against another ideal, but thinking together and seeing what we human beings can do. The crisis is not in the economic world, nor in the political world; the crisis is in consciousness. I think very few of us realise this.
From The Network of Thought
#Krishnamurti
#meditation
#phylosophy
#day62
#life
#consciousness