Some Questions And Krishnamurti

[wuglr 0]

Only if i deny all existence except myself can i say that. But that is to take on an extreme form of idealism, which has shown itself to be fallacious.

 

 

If we follow from what i have just finished answering, the reason why you are still not yet free is because you cannot avoid yourself, that is, if everything is merely a thought (idea). If we consider that everything is merely a figment of our own thoughts (ideas), then you are merely a burden onto yourself. However, there is a dilemma when faced with a purely idealistic world: you can not control the "thoughts" (i.e. the objects) around you merely through thought itself, and that these thoughts that were there for you to observe you did not "think up"?they just were. Secondly, if you wanted to make something out of thin air, it is not possible. So, in the end, one is forced to accept a reality, though still perceived by our mind, that exists beyond our own thoughts. It may also be the case that you are not the one doing the thinking for yourself.

 

But to mention something about obtaining knowledge and understanding: to me, the first step to these things is ignorance with the desire to want knowledge and understanding. It is said that the truth will set you free. But you have to ask yourself, "Set me free from what?"

What is existence?

What is myself/ me?

 

Myself is the thinker, the imaginer/formulator of routes by which to answer you; the delighter idealising the process of creation, and its creations.

 

I wasn't idealising, I was seeing these things happen in me. But yes I do not know peace (altho, peace cannot be known as such, by definition of knowledge:ownership,possession), because I still try to be free from the things I see, like the thinker, seeing thought (itself) and trying to be free of it. I see this in myself, it always leads to a cycle of oppression and resistance (conflict). As I said before, effort is only the means to effort. I see that my effort is restrictive to the ideal of freedom.

 

Perhaps I do act towards an ideal, but here I am not talking of an ideal, I am not sinking my mental-image-teeth into the feeling and impression I have of freedom, or peace. I have not experienced either, they are not in my conditioning, my bundle (can they ever be?). But this is where language causes problems, as it is restrictive, and the things I am talking of are non-restrictable (which, after stating, also restricts).

 

You may see ideals in what I say, but this end, I am not idealising. Even tho, as is obvious, 'not-idealising' is an ideal, idea or concept of itself; the absence of a thing. It labels and restricts, and dictates prerequisites; in this instance existence.

 

We are brought back to the question, what is existence?

Can existence (of anything) be proved or disproved?

What is outside our perception (the processing, storing and labeling of sensory input)? (Or is there anything other than perception?)

 

Again, please do note, I am not idealising, nor suggesting or forcing a theory. I am really asking! Tho, not for authority. For seeing; what we call truth.

[truefusion 3]

I wasn't idealising, I was seeing these things happen in me. But yes I do not know peace (altho, peace cannot be known as such, by definition of knowledge:ownership,possession), because I still try to be free from the things I see, like the thinker, seeing thought (itself) and trying to be free of it. I see this in myself, it always leads to a cycle of oppression and resistance (conflict). As I said before, effort is only the means to effort. I see that my effort is restrictive to the ideal of freedom.

As a word of advice, don't seek full detachment (from reality), it's not a healthy state of mind. You may question what reality or existence is, but in the end it is undeniable, therefore establishing truth.

[wuglr 0]

As a word of advice, don't seek full detachment (from reality), it's not a healthy state of mind. You may question what reality or existence is, but in the end it is undeniable, therefore establishing truth.

That's why I'm asking; we all claim to 'know' our current perception, conditioning or grasp of things as truth, fact, and the only way it, or life, can be. This is taken for granted, we are cynical, obsessed with seeking pleasure, sensation and gratification day in, day out. Is this not the cause of all problems? (Greed, envy, murder, lust, theft, idol/ideal worship, deceit etc.)

 

Every time we try to escape 'reality', by conforming to a pattern other than ourselves (our pattern of conditioning), we conflict with ourselves (effort leads to effort).

 

Is there any other way to live? You say, no, lets not investigate. But have you experienced different? So can you truly know?

A simple, "shhhh Tom!" won't really suffice here!

"The earth is flat, I advise you not to look into it."

 

Continuing: again you haven't answered my questions, choosing to give authoritative advice, speaking from your opinion, memory, experience, perspective etc. What do you have other than that? It is logical we attempt to sustain and affirm it. What is reality, other than a (relative) concept or ideal? You've put the questions into your own words*, and interpreted my intentions. Why not simply answer the questions? That's the reason this thread exists. Not to be smart, correct or authoritative, but to question, look, and find out by questioning and looking.

 

Like with peace, when you described your experience of it.

 

All else we seem to have done is oppose.

 

What is health, or to be healthy? Is definition based on general consensus? An average? Choose those which conform (a majority), exclude the rest. Isn't this prejudice? Healthy to one, is sick to another.

If we are to judge by morals, isn't this also prejudice?

And by rules?

.. To judge at all?

 

I feel, and think, that I need to understand completely my feelings, my thoughts. Why is this not healthy?

 

The only thing preventing or denying this would be fear. Fear of change, fear of loss, fear of the unknown, fear of the unfamiliar. (Are you not afraid? I am afraid!)

 

But ok, let us stay in this self affirmed cycle of 'existence' - living in the past, concerning for the future - if that is what you wish.

 

 

 

ETA: *Seeking implies an idealised goal, achievement or measurable success. I said I was not speaking of ideals, merely understanding. The process of which itself might be susceptible to idealisation, but what can you say the result is? Clarity? Truth? Consider truth; that without any human intervention; that which exists; what is. Read these up to about #25 (not the lessons, just the titles. #25 because after, the ideal of God is introduced, as well as intention). Repeating them would be conforming to a pattern, sure. But remove the statements from the context of method and desired result. Just statements, with no strings, meaning or anything attached. What do you see?

Edited June 3, 2009 by wuglr (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

That's why I'm asking; we all claim to 'know' our current perception, conditioning or grasp of things as truth, fact, and the only way it, or life, can be. This is taken for granted, we are cynical, obsessed with seeking pleasure, sensation and gratification day in, day out. Is this not the cause of all problems? (Greed, envy, murder, lust, theft, idol/ideal worship, deceit etc.)

Indeed, i gave out that advice based on my own experience, from the last time i attempted such a separation. I am thankful that the worries of this life (not necessarily my own) made me consider reality again the way i normally do. But i wouldn't call that perception the cause of all problems, because the problems would still be there after reaching full detachment (though through your perception you don't see them). And that's what i realized, though i realized it before, i realized it then more than before, that problems don't solve themselves. Therefore i see it as non-sense to attaining full detachment, since it is really just selfishness. If you seek understanding, then understand.

Continuing: again you haven't answered my questions, choosing to give authoritative advice, speaking from your opinion, memory, experience, perspective etc. What do you have other than that? It is logical we attempt to sustain and affirm it. What is reality, other than a (relative) concept or ideal? You've put the questions into your own words*, and interpreted my intentions. Why not simply answer the questions? That's the reason this thread exists. Not to be smart, correct or authoritative, but to question, look, and find out by questioning and looking.

Can i ask you something? It has been intriguing me ever since you have confronted me by telling me to leave myself out of the questions you ask me (though the questions are not necessarily directed to me). Do you believe there can be truth without conflict? That without falsehood there can be truth? Or vice versa? And do you believe that truth is merely an ideal? Or do you believe it can exist outside our own selves? You say truth exists only if we don't bring ourselves into it. (Or do i have you wrong here?) If i have you correct here, then is that not itself an authoritative statement? Aren't you just bringing yourself into this? If i ask the same questions to you that you have been asking me while requesting that you leave yourself out of it, could you answer me? I see the fact that your questioning itself shows that you cannot answer the questions you are asking. Indeed, it is like you say (and i say this seriously): we have nothing other than our own perception, memory and experience, to which we attribute to truth. Leave these things out, and what do we have? Nothing. But, nevertheless, you wondered why i did not answer you. Remove everything, and you are left with nothing. Ironically, we also have to remove the term "nothing" as well, since it is merely a word that we attribute to something—which makes things even more ironic. But if your whole goal is to understand, then you have to bring yourself into things, you have to accept the existence of ideals (not necessarily the ideals themselves, just their existence), for even if you remove everything, you are left with the idea of nothing, which is not only part of me but also part of you and everyone else. Therefore, what is truth to you? You have rules to obtaining truth and understanding, don't you? Indeed, or else why am i advised to follow them? Yet, though by these rules one is to leave these things out, what would be truth to you? Can you answer me? What is truth (to you)?

ETA: *Seeking implies an idealised goal, achievement or measurable success. I said I was not speaking of ideals, merely understanding. The process of which itself might be susceptible to idealisation, but what can you say the result is? Clarity? Truth? Consider truth; that without any human intervention; that which exists; what is. Read these up to about #25 (not the lessons, just the titles. #25 because after, the ideal of God is introduced, as well as intention). Repeating them would be conforming to a pattern, sure. But remove the statements from the context of method and desired result. Just statements, with no strings, meaning or anything attached. What do you see?

As mentioned earlier, remove everything, and you have nothing. Therefore i see nothing; you have showed me nothing.