In the forest I listen. Trees swish and sway in the breeze.  Birds
call out and insects flit around.  Sounds are a hum, a rustle, a
buzz. Movement is rhythmical, gentle. There is a natural force.  It
is not noisy, threatening, demanding. The sounds, smells, motions,
form a chorus of life. Even a storm is beautiful. Man has to be
careful or will die, but it is not a terrible death.  There is a
passion in the wilderness.  Not the passion of strong emotions and
feelings. A different kind of passion. It is a passion of grace and
harmony.  You can not love the wilderness. It has more than a petty
love we can offer.  You can experience the passion of life in the
wilderness if you listen  because there is no human there.  Man has
a passion which is petty. The experience of natures power, its
passion, is beautiful, religious. Man has turned it into rituals,
beliefs, myths.  All of that has led us to where we are now.  To
return to nature we have to see all that.  We can't just go back to
reclaim nature.  It was never a thing for humans.  We are just one
of the things in it.
We have lost our natural selves.  We look for a way to recapture
it.  To regain our passion for life. In nature passion is a grand
affair. You can not see where any of the particular sounds and
movement begin and end. It moves like a great pulse and breath
sweeping the earth, seen not in this or that tree, butterfly, ant,
or lizard, but as if all are living in the one force. That force can
be hostile. The animals are known to squabble amongst themselves.
It also seems man is pitted against this force.  Fighting and
struggling, pushing and shoving, arguing and disagreeing.   Are we a
part of that force, sometimes in harmony, sometimes antagonistic,
sometimes oblivious, sometimes wise,  or, in what we call
intelligence, have we taken a different turn altogether?  Why do we
search for passion when it is just there, naturally?

Walking in the park there is the beauty of the trees and the birds
singing.  We  can see all this without the mediation of I, ego.  The
beauty is there. There is no need for the self centered  perspective
we call I. What then is I doing there?  Why does I persist?  We can
be aware of all the terrible things in the world, war, famine,
cruelty,  hatred, corruption, but it is never our responsibility.
How can we think of I as not involved in the world as it is, but
only as the observer?  I  is  part of the world and it is
responsible for interceding in the humanity. We say we accept
responsibility.  Then why isn't the awareness of all the terrible
things in the world for which we are responsible, enough to ward off
I? In the face of all the facts, why isn't I dispelled and no longer
entertained? I is so ingrained in the mind that even in quietness,
in meditation, in spiritual awareness, it does not subside. Self
awareness does not change this.  What is it that would acknowledge
the part I has in the world, that knows in fact it is the source of
disorder, hate, violence, want to change and to change the world,
but tolerate, maintain that part.  There is only one thing that can
do that and that is love, but it is not a spiritual love,  but a
self-love.  It is not love at all, but an abuse.

Listening to a radio program about religion, there were lots of
insightful questions about various religions and what they offer. At
the end of the program the radio host said that they thought
without God there is nothing. So I am imagining, what could they
have said.

I have my church, my religion, I live by faith and hope.  God and
his message, his servants, his messengers give me the truth.  He
tells me he is love, to love no one but him.  I see beauty in the
world and know God is real.  There is goodness and righteousness in
my actions when I follow Gods words.  I listen to the word of God
and all my fears, my worries and my despair are gone. I have been
misguided, and have strayed from God. I have learnt how to know the
truth  and to discern what is right and wrong.  I am no longer the
plaything of evil. I have energy to help others, to show love in my
deeds, and to bring joy to the world.  There is now a fullness and
completeness in my life. The words of the holy book bring me
inspiration, guidance, and understanding. I have a constant
companion, who fills my life with good thoughts, and who I can pray
to in my hour of need.   Without all of this there would be
emptiness, nothing.   How could I live with nothing?  It is
meaningless.  I have meaning and purpose in my life.

How many of us are just saying that over and over again?  Pretending
all of the artificiality is a natural condition?  Offended, angered
when there is any doubt.  Willing to defend it with violence?

A dialogue with nature, beauty, truth, with the sacred, is not a
dialogue with knowledge.  It is not a dialogue with a result,
attachment.  A dialogue where there are people learning together is
a sharing of the sacred.  It is a relationship in the natural, in
love.  What is it that people find so important that this is broken,
destroyed?  What is it that is so necessary that they spend all
their time struggling, fighting?  Nothing needs to be done, formed,
resolved, known, to be in dialogue.  Actually it is merely a
beginning.  But is being mute and disassociated in dialogue a
responsible relationship?  Talking and discussing is going on all
the time, everywhere, endlessly. Isn't this a relationship we have?
Is it a responsible one?

--- In krishnamurti_jiddhu@yahoogroups.com, "Lane" <lanejen@t...> wrote:
> Surely, Peblinapond, the emptiness itself is not greed, but the
trying to fill it. Is that what you meant?
> Lane

Continuing:::::

I am listening, watching, and there are the birds chirping, the
insects are being noisy, there is a breeze and the sun is warm.  I am
experiencing this and enjoying it.  Do I ask how I can have this
experience? The capacity for the experience and the moment of
experience are indistinguishable.  There is no one who regards that
experience as seperate from the beauty and enjoyment.

I like this one!
Rajesh

peblinapond wrote:
> I was talking with a friend and we came to a question, what is the
> cause of greed.  He was quite shocked and thought the question was
> annoying.  He kept asking, Why would you ask such a question?  To him
> it suggested a lack of responsibility.  It suggested the questioner
> was avoiding their greed and looking for some thing, or someone, some
> other, to blame. For me the question simply followed in the enquiry,
> and I had not given any regard to its implications. I could not have
> imagined this myself, and was curious to find out his explanantion.
> It is apparent to me now that there is the mind working, looking at
> the world, knowing.  There is also the world at large, of which we
> are a part.  This division where the mind is looking at the world, we
> call objective, and there is the subjective experience, that we know
> to be ourselves as a human being in the world.  We can reach what we
> might call a superior position that we think is totally, mindfully,
> looking at the world.  But there is still just you in the world. How
> we still think that the superior position, the developing position,
> is admirable and meritous, is difficult to talk about.  I can accept
> that there is greed, as a concept, as an idea, as a reason, but I
> can`t see that it actually involves me, the individual human being.
> What can i, the person raising these questions, do to not leave the
> question and the discussion, as an exchange of views and ideas and
> opinions between people?  That is, to have the meaning as not limited
> to knowledge as we usually consider knowledge, but as the fact? A
> fact that requires no further discussion, no developing
> understanding, or improved awareness. In this case, considering the
> question, what is the cause of greed, I could see through the
> dicussion, that I had no idea, no answer, for the question. It was
> clear,  as had been said, that the mind, operating, functioning, and
> providing the thinking would be equally, essentially, greed.  This
> negation of thought, the complete ending, left no way.  In that
> moment I could see that there was still an answer.  A different kind
> of answer. It was the emptiness, the vacuum, that i am trying to fill
> that is greed.
>
>
> *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129plf4ff/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups\
/S=1705020585:HM/EXP=1095310659/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://companion.ya\
hoo.com>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/krishnamurti_jiddhu/
>
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       krishnamurti_jiddhu-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>      
<mailto:krishnamurti_jiddhu-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

I was talking with a friend and we came to a question, what is the
cause of greed.  He was quite shocked and thought the question was
annoying.  He kept asking, Why would you ask such a question?  To him
it suggested a lack of responsibility.  It suggested the questioner
was avoiding their greed and looking for some thing, or someone, some
other, to blame. For me the question simply followed in the enquiry,
and I had not given any regard to its implications. I could not have
imagined this myself, and was curious to find out his explanantion.
It is apparent to me now that there is the mind working, looking at
the world, knowing.  There is also the world at large, of which we
are a part.  This division where the mind is looking at the world, we
call objective, and there is the subjective experience, that we know
to be ourselves as a human being in the world.  We can reach what we
might call a superior position that we think is totally, mindfully,
looking at the world.  But there is still just you in the world. How
we still think that the superior position, the developing position,
is admirable and meritous, is difficult to talk about.  I can accept
that there is greed, as a concept, as an idea, as a reason, but I
can`t see that it actually involves me, the individual human being.
What can i, the person raising these questions, do to not leave the
question and the discussion, as an exchange of views and ideas and
opinions between people?  That is, to have the meaning as not limited
to knowledge as we usually consider knowledge, but as the fact? A
fact that requires no further discussion, no developing
understanding, or improved awareness. In this case, considering the
question, what is the cause of greed, I could see through the
dicussion, that I had no idea, no answer, for the question. It was
clear,  as had been said, that the mind, operating, functioning, and
providing the thinking would be equally, essentially, greed.  This
negation of thought, the complete ending, left no way.  In that
moment I could see that there was still an answer.  A different kind
of answer. It was the emptiness, the vacuum, that i am trying to fill
that is greed.

hello; how are you?




--- In krishnamurti_jiddhu@yahoogroups.com, shankara nanda
<shankara_sarahab@y...> wrote:
> hi
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Who is the speaker?
When we are reading, posting, talking and discussing together, isn't
what we are talking about the matter in hand? I am reading,
thinking, listening, and so on, and i am interested in what is being
discussed.  Do i have a sense of who says what and when, and that
because such and such said this or that, that the understanding is
affected and is not what I am plainly reading, hearing?  No. I don't
do this do i?  We just find what we read interesting, or not.  We
find it clear or unclear, sensible or stupid, meaningful or
confused.  Within a continuing discussion there is no individual
speaker or writer, it is just the words, the thoughts, that are
coming from the conference of the many people engaged in it. That is
what intelligent people are interested in.  They are not concerned
with establishing protocols or organising the contributors as in a
heirarchy.  When I smell the perfume of a flower, there is no
mediator.  I want to get the full experience and enjoy the
fragrance.  What did i do to do this?  I don't know how I did it but
I put aside the busy me, the ignorant me, the lazy me, the boorish
me, and the egotistical me.  I put that all aside and for a while,
at least, was open to something real.

if i may suggest sir, it is the you and/or the i that thinks it can
put itself aside.  that is never going to happen...  will it?

can we go into that?



>pedalinapond said:

>coming together, freely and openly, to talk, or to do something,
the sense of there being a you or an I is something we have to put
aside.  Freely and openly, there can not be the person who asks
questions nor the other people who discuss those matters. Of course
a question may be asked, or a line of enquiry may be begun, but this
is not connected to the persons, the named individuals who are
involved in the discussion. All of the people, reading and posting,
are sharing in the thoughts.  Perhaps usually there is a kind of
popular chat format, but here, to be open and free, the participants
mind must try to also be open and free. That is, not limited by the
effort to make or find communication.  It is not just a matter of
expression, it is thinking, and thinking at a deep level.  I
understand what is being discussed, uses words, the language, and
invokes the ordinary meaning of words and what they may mean to
others.  Because ordinarily the words are simply communicating
information, which one gives and receives, it is necessary to
clarify what we are talking about.  This giving and receiving is not
what I am doing. There is a direct contact with the thoughts being
shared by the postings,in the mind, if you like, and this actually
deals with the thoughts. This is, like meditation, looking at the
thoughts immediately, without judgement or conclusion.   I am sure
that this is quite interesting, and more useful than guarded and
indulgent opinions.  Who is the speaker, the talker, the writer, and
what is the offence and anger?  Is it not you or me, but all of us?
Isn't this what we have to understand and learn about?

huh?  would you mind repeating that???

Coming together, freely and openly, to talk, or to do something, the
sense of there being a you or an I is something we have to put
aside.  Freely and openly, there can not be the person who asks
questions nor the other people who discuss those matters. Of course
a question may be asked, or a line of enquiry may be begun, but this
is not connected to the persons, the named individuals who are
involved in the discussion. All of the people, reading and posting,
are sharing in the thoughts.  Perhaps usually there is a kind of
popular chat format, but here, to be open and free, the participants
mind must try to also be open and free. That is, not limited by the
effort to make or find communication.  It is not just a matter of
expression, it is thinking, and thinking at a deep level.  I
understand what is being discussed, uses words, the language, and
invokes the ordinary meaning of words and what they may mean to
others.  Because ordinarily the words are simply communicating
information, which one gives and receives, it is necessary to
clarify what we are talking about.  This giving and receiving is not
what I am doing. There is a direct contact with the thoughts being
shared by the postings,in the mind, if you like, and this actually
deals with the thoughts. This is, like meditation, looking at the
thoughts immediately, without judgement or conclusion.   I am sure
that this is quite interesting, and more useful than guarded and
indulgent opinions.  Who is the speaker, the talker, the writer, and
what is the offence and anger?  Is it not you or me, but all of us?
Isn't this what we have to understand and learn about?

Yes, there is a relationship, a new, different kind of
relationship.  I am not saying it is novel.  In watching there is
seeing all of that which is you, and so that watching is new, and
the seeing is different.  From that new mind can there be a watching
that is free to do anything, speak, discuss, enquire, without being
affected, becoming conditioned, by the watching?  Do we even need
the notion of watching? Seeing the real effect of the active world,
the wind blowing, the light changing, the trees and bushes, the
birds and animals, people, does have an affect in that the mind is
quiet, alert and alive.  There are though much deeper factors.  The
anxiety, the impatience, the anger, the violence.  Are we
interested  to persue these matters deeply enough?  Isn't there a
level of sufficiency in the place where we are living, existing,
that people are reluctant to want to disturb?  Even the avid
enquirer comes to the place where there is a talker, a discusser, or
co-respondent, and thinks that is enough.

Gentlemen,

If I may suggest; we are the common ground.  Each one of us is
thinking this through; each one thinking s/he will come to some
understanding through thinking about these things and discussing
them.

Is one watching as this is occuring?  Or, is there only thinking
with the associated feelings going on?  If there is watching while
speaking, listening, feeling, walking, looking about, doing ones
job, fixing ones dinner, doing ones yoga or Pilates on the living
room floor, then the entire thing is different.

The relationship to all things is going on indefinitely.  It cannot
be avoided.  The relationship is between the me, the center and
everyone else, everything else and all the ideas one has.  It is
going on inside of each person.

The question may be, can one be attentive to what is taking place
inwardly and outwardly while living, breathing, acting etc. etc.  If
not then no awareness of the me occurs and so only awareness of what
I think is important and so I remain ignorant of what I am deeply,
what is driving me.  If I am constantly reacting, which I normally
am, trying to control myself, reacting to what someone else says or
does, then I am caught in that ignorance; however, if I am
watching, "passively", not being passive, but watching without all
the time reacting, but watching the reactions as well as the whole
business then something different occurs.

It appears to be a difference of watching and not watching.  If I am
watching, throw out all the words and explanations and just watch;
then perhaps something can be seen as it actually is as it is
occuring.  That seeing may have its own effect.

david


--- In krishnamurti_jiddhu@yahoogroups.com, "leon_horsnell"
<leonh@p...> wrote:
> in a forum like this we can expose our views to the light and to
> others if that is different.So that like minded people meet and
may
> share in what 'K' is discussing
> thanks
> Leon
>
>
> --- In krishnamurti_jiddhu@yahoogroups.com, "okikase"
<okikase@y...>
> wrote:
> > I am trying to find the common ground here.  Let's say we hear
of
> > someone who speaks about a revolutionary mind that is free.  I
go
> to
> > meetings, read books and watch videos.  I am not doing that here
> am
> > I.  Here I come to an open forum.  Is there any speaker that I
pay
> > attention to without just being some adoration, agreement,
> > disagreement?  Some would say that is good.   I can listen to
all
> > and sundry and there is no authority, no dominant theme.  But is
> > that true?  Unless we put the difficult questions and explore
> them,
> > what we say is full of authority, dominance, and so on.  Without
> > some central speaker who we have come to listen to, are we
capable
> > of listening? As you know the record shows that K emphatically
> > rejected such a role and said listening is like a meditation.
Is
> it
> > possible to have such meditation here? Just because we agree
there
> > is no central speaker with such a role, does this do away with
> that
> > habit? Does it mean that each of us are the speaker in their own
> > way, freely agreeing, disagreeing, doubting some statement,
> > questioning what is said?  Well yes, but are we in meditation on
> > this?  Or are we quacking like ducks?
> > Of course this is a write and read forum.  I use the word listen
> to
> > mean attention.  But is it possible here  to have the same
insight
> > as listening without thought.  Are we in fact looking to touch
> upon
> > meditation?  Through all of these words, can we come to, or even
> > point to  insight?  I am not saying it is a waste of time. Can
the
> > energy of this forum, touch upon the vast, the eternal, and the
> > sacred?   Is this is what we are doing?  The words, and  the
> > becoming self, can and do get in the way.

Take away everything and what are you left with?  Take away your
job, your family, friends, home, sport, hobbies, interests,
entertainment, all of it.  I don't mean go and live like a hermit.
I mean, psychologically, what is left?  Whatever it is, it would
probably still an engagement with family, friends, work, and
leisure.  So this seems strange to me. Why do we seek a life of our
own? Why do we become annoyed and frustrated, despondent and
despairing, and have to solve a psychological problem?  It's a
problem because it is difficult, our condition is everyone's, and it
is psychological because it's ours, personally.  But why the
annoyance and frustration?  The answer is conflict. It's the sense
of inner conflict that leads us to want to escape, and to not be
bounded by all that is us, the home, family work, activities. By
clearing away all the things, the demands, and dependencies, we can
be free, outwardly, of the conflict.  Then we need to live a life of
some kind, to live somewhere.  Then we are looking for a place
without conflict.  The conflict that is normal life.  So normal life
becomes antagonistic, and people begin to outlaw it, making even
more conflict.
What is the conflict that is normal life?  Normal life is considered
standard.  A kind of inert existence where one can readily survive.
It is a social and political assumption about an open community. Yet
it doesn't exist.  A child is trained, educated and molded to accept
the community.  There are hospitals, police, fire stations, city
engineers, banks, farmers, markets, shops, roads, railways, garages,
and schools,  all working at special, impersonal and technical
tasks.  It is a large complex operation developing and expanding.
There is rent or home loans to pay, food to be bought, a car to run,
and water, electricity, gas, and taxes, are all financial expenses.
To live in the community you need to have money, and other
prerequisites such as  identity, references, qualifications, and
employment.  Many of the facilities and resources have been taken up
by earlier generations of people, and access is limited and
competitive.   The reality is conflict.

What is a fact?  Just the other day i was reading a magazine and i
came across a small bit of information.  It was a quote.  But I am
paraphrasing; If a problem doesn't have a solution, then more than
likely it is a fact.

Are you a scientist? Science is about fact. Like Gravity. A
scientist accepts a proof, that is the words and formulae, because
the steps in moving the mind to experience the fact are flawless,
and the result is proved and can be repeated. The fact is there,
unsupported by the words and formulae, independent of the perceiver,
and is not a result of the process of theorising. It is there
regardless of human beings, it was not discovered, did not need
pointing out, nor communicating, and is unaffected by any discussion
about it. Yet we do assign importance, even necessity, to the
notification of a fact. Actually there may have been at one time,
general understanding of a fact without special regard, but it has
become blocked, and ignored, until brought into attention. Then
there is the problem of regarding the fact wholly, without its
artificially assigned value, which has reduced it to words and
formulae. Have you ever felt Gravity-The Gravity of a situation?

What is intelligent?
There is a great search going on in space looking for water, looking
for signs of life. The investigators say they want to know whether
we are alone on Earth, and whether there is intelligent life
somewhere else in the universe.  Are we really the measure of
intelligent life?  The killing, the destruction, the pollution, and
the inequality. Are these intelligent actions?  Or is the planning,
development and progress that brings only more problems, is that
intelligent? The long history of civilisation has not brought any
sign of removing poverty, homelessness, starvation, disease, and
suffering for most of the world's people.  What we do is not
intelligent.  To leave things as they are, is that intelligent?  To
take what we are doing on Earth, all the stupidity, and to collect
information about that, and call it intelligence, is that
intelligent?

People came to Krishnamurti, by way of the gatherings, the talks,
the books and videos, because there were the opportunities to do
so. Yet k spoke of the mind and the contradiction and conflict when
you do not see the mind. He was saying to people, if you come
because the mind is wanting, urging, needing, searching,
challenging, exploring, developing, researching, studying, learning,
fighting, loving, hating, and so on and on, then that is just the
mind. That is your contradiction and conflict. Looking at the
mind, your mind, for yourself, watching all the stuff, and letting
it blossom, will free you from it. Clear away all that is on the
mind, and then there is the energy of life, and a true passion.
Now, what is the opportunity? Who would come to a discussion group
on the internet? Is it to remember K and what he said? Is it a
politically correct group, who revise, over and over again,
definitions of words like self and awareness. Is it social club
where they seek control of who is in and and who is out? Is it an
arena of psychic phenomena where the mind dictates? Unless we are
putting our house in order, any discussion is wasteful. That is the
opportunity. To see how you can more carefully and effectively, put
the house in order.

I would like to draw your attention to a global internet forum that has recently been initiated, with a focus on education. This is under the auspices of Kinfonet (The Krishnamurti Information Network) and details can be found on the webpage: http://www.kinfonet.org/discussion_forums/ .

I feel this venture has significance in facilitating communication among those deeply concerned with the part education has to play in bringing about fundamental change in the individual and society. Although the forum should be of interest to those already concerned with Krishnamurti's words, I feel it might be helpful to those working in conventional education, at the Universities and colleges of Education, etc.

Here is a brief formal introduction to the forum.

Clive Elwell

            (Moderator of the Kinfonet Internet Education Forum)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Kinfonet Internet Education Forum

A global internet forum with its focus on education has recently been initiated. This is under the auspices of Kinfonet (The Krishnamurti Information Network) and details can be found on the webpage: http://www.kinfonet.org/discussion_forums/ .

The education forum is a venue for those concerned with the possibility of bringing about fundamental change in the individual and so in society. As with all the Kinfonet forums, enquiry is the key.

In addition to those involved in Krishnamurti-related education, contributions are welcome from teachers, academics, parents, students and anyone concerned with the education of the whole human being.

Apart from dialogue, the forum can be used for posting articles, classifieds, and information about schools, gatherings, new projects, and the like.

The following statement by Krishnamurti reflects the intended spirit of the forum:

"Authority, as 'the one who knows', has no place in learning. The educator and the student are learning together"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here, on the internet, it is different from talking face to face.
Not only in an obvious way, but in the way many, many people are
making comments, actually in their minds, and virtually by posting,
all at one and the same time. This brings an important lesson.
There has to be common ground. Maybe common is not the right word.
With so many people and with so many perspectives, most of the time
is being wasted on clarifying and debating each other. Everyone will
agree and disagree, be right and be wrong, with no coming together,
except perhaps, in a polite, or rude, social manner. The ground is
where there is a sharing of energy in learning, so that I am
learning, you are learning, all are learning, and there is no one
who is presenting, originating, teaching, controlling. Or for that
matter, no one being a learner, simply agreeing, or being
compliant. When you are meditating, and the mind is quiet, all the
sights and sounds of life touch you without there being an outside
or an inside. You can look at the world and there are no thoughts.
Looking and listening is clear and fresh, free of mental
interference. The world is just as it is. The mind is not judging.
Neither good or bad, right or wrong, correct or incorrect. Seeing
clearly and openly doesn't mean you aren't seeing what is. What is
there can be violent, disturbing, painful, fearful. Seeing this as
fact, immediately, in the mind, without judging, thinking about it,
deals with it and the mind is free. Listen to what people say. Just
listen and deal with it, in the mind, as it were, immediately. Then
there is no room for, analysing, comparing, concluding, and there
are no thoughts, theories, beliefs. The mind is learning. There is
the ground, though it is quite a new foundation, having no floor to
stand on.

Do we think like good and bad followers or disciples?  What did he
mean by that?  Why can't I understand that?  How can i live like
that?  I know that but what can I do?  It makes sense when i read it
but I can't explain it.

Meditation is very interesting.  Although I never really know what i
am doing. I don't have any method except to sit with my eyes closed
in a comfortable position and listen.  There is a lot of mind
activity which is wondering what I am doing or trying to do.  Since
I really don't know, or at least am unsure of what it is all about,
it takes a while to settle down.  Just watching the thoughts and
listening, as it were,  to the thoughts, without attaching any
importance to them, a quietness descends.  The meditating  can be
disturbed by my shifting attention. I find that I watch the thoughts
and give attention to them in a broad manner.  I am also aware of
the mind thinking, and so I am aware there is an activity.  So the
subtle activities of thinking, like trying to understand, or looking
for meaning, or focusing, examining, and so on, become noticeable.
Then, without making any effort, not trying to change or stop the
activity, just quietly watching, there comes a different quality of
mind. This comes to you when you are still.  It embraces you.  You
do not go to it or get it. After meditating you have this feeling,
and you see that it is the inner that becomes the outer.  Not the
other way round.

Listening to my inner self, my inner dialogue, is a strange
experience.  I listen to the thoughts which are coming and going in
a movement of the mind.  What is called the self is the various
parts of the moment- My senses of the environment, the bodily
feelings of being here, the listening, and also there is the sense
of generating the thoughts.  There is compexity of a divided
experience, mind, body, senses, but also the linking in time and
place to a oneness, who is me.  Very strange.

I am trying to find the common ground here.  Let's say we hear of
someone who speaks about a revolutionary mind that is free.  I go to
meetings, read books and watch videos.  I am not doing that here am
I.  Here I come to an open forum.  Is there any speaker that I pay
attention to without just being some adoration, agreement,
disagreement?  Some would say that is good.   I can listen to all
and sundry and there is no authority, no dominant theme.  But is
that true?  Unless we put the difficult questions and explore them,
what we say is full of authority, dominance, and so on.  Without
some central speaker who we have come to listen to, are we capable
of listening? As you know the record shows that K emphatically
rejected such a role and said listening is like a meditation.  Is it
possible to have such meditation here? Just because we agree there
is no central speaker with such a role, does this do away with that
habit? Does it mean that each of us are the speaker in their own
way, freely agreeing, disagreeing, doubting some statement,
questioning what is said?  Well yes, but are we in meditation on
this?  Or are we quacking like ducks?
Of course this is a write and read forum.  I use the word listen to
mean attention.  But is it possible here  to have the same insight
as listening without thought.  Are we in fact looking to touch upon
meditation?  Through all of these words, can we come to, or even
point to  insight?  I am not saying it is a waste of time. Can the
energy of this forum, touch upon the vast, the eternal, and the
sacred?   Is this is what we are doing?  The words, and  the
becoming self, can and do get in the way.

It's true we are beginning to some extent from what K said and
wrote. But also I am entering into the understanding of a self which
is not centered in the personal, and so who said or wrote what is no
longer important.  It is the words touching upon meaning, upon
insight and upon action of the mind.  So can I speak from that
place?  Can I speak without the self depending on, and accumulating
knowledge? Is the position K held, at least in our minds, to be
exclusive and sacrosanct?  I can find what action is sacred for
myself.

in a forum like this we can expose our views to the light and to
others if that is different.So that like minded people meet and may
share in what 'K' is discussing
thanks
Leon


--- In krishnamurti_jiddhu@yahoogroups.com, "okikase" <okikase@y...>
wrote:
> I am trying to find the common ground here.  Let's say we hear of
> someone who speaks about a revolutionary mind that is free.  I go
to
> meetings, read books and watch videos.  I am not doing that here
am
> I.  Here I come to an open forum.  Is there any speaker that I pay
> attention to without just being some adoration, agreement,
> disagreement?  Some would say that is good.   I can listen to all
> and sundry and there is no authority, no dominant theme.  But is
> that true?  Unless we put the difficult questions and explore
them,
> what we say is full of authority, dominance, and so on.  Without
> some central speaker who we have come to listen to, are we capable
> of listening? As you know the record shows that K emphatically
> rejected such a role and said listening is like a meditation.  Is
it
> possible to have such meditation here? Just because we agree there
> is no central speaker with such a role, does this do away with
that
> habit? Does it mean that each of us are the speaker in their own
> way, freely agreeing, disagreeing, doubting some statement,
> questioning what is said?  Well yes, but are we in meditation on
> this?  Or are we quacking like ducks?
> Of course this is a write and read forum.  I use the word listen
to
> mean attention.  But is it possible here  to have the same insight
> as listening without thought.  Are we in fact looking to touch
upon
> meditation?  Through all of these words, can we come to, or even
> point to  insight?  I am not saying it is a waste of time. Can the
> energy of this forum, touch upon the vast, the eternal, and the
> sacred?   Is this is what we are doing?  The words, and  the
> becoming self, can and do get in the way.