Quote:"The mind that has
put its house in order is silent."
BY: To quote it like this
out of its context gives space to many misinterpretations: 'mind' can't
put its house in order. Mind does not exist without 'thinker', so he/she
is the one who can put something in order and make decisions. If there
is order then the mind might be silent, that could mean with less movement
or without movement but this doesn't necessarily mean that there is 'silence'.
Not the silence K is talking about:
Jer*: Yes, this does leave
the door open to misinterpretation...
BY*: I would say: This invites
to misinterpretation. What might not that different or the difference doesn't
matter when we see that the personality interprets everything, even the
most clear formulated statements, so that it will fit into the own individual
concept. Apart of this any interpretation of 'silence', any, is
a misinterpretation.(There might be the exception of the one who is 'living'
silence and is expressing oneself out of it. Though this 'expressions of
silence' will be interpreted by all the other individuals and it is a bloody
reality: How highly intelligent those interpretations what ever might be,
they are all misinterpretations.)
Jer*: ...But I question your
statement that "mind does not exist without the 'thinker'." This is evident
when one speaks about mind as it applies to the "self" which sees itself
separated from all else...
BY*: Yes, this person's mind
is normally not separated from his/her personality because there is identification
with the mind, what means the person IS the mind and gets his/her selfconfirmation
out of it. So this is one reason why people like to be that busy with their
mind and have developed their mind trip in such a highly sophisticated
Jer*: ...But does that preclude
a "universal" or "undivided" Mind?
BY*: 'Universal' or 'undivided
Mind' does not 'exist' if it is not lived: individually realized. Part
of thesophisticated intellect is the developments of high ideals, ideas,
concepts,etc. but this does not mean that all this exist. Yes, it exist
in the heads of their creators and in all those who have adapted the same
idea, but not necessary in life. People are fighting all life long to bring
their concepts into realization, how much suffering is caused by that!
'Universal mind' is a theory and can only be proofed individually in one's
life...(But this seems to be like the promise to win the first price if
you play the lotterie. It creates a false hope which distracts from reality,
so better forget about it.) Talking about it serves only to confirm theoriesand
concepts, which in a certain way creates obstacles and hinder the realizationof
it. Anyway people are satisfied by their concepts and their fights,their
suffering and so on, so realization is not even wanted...
has no cause and, therefore, has no end. That silence ... which has no
ending... is absolutely necessary, because it is only in that silence that
there is no movement of thought. It is only in that silence that that which
is sacred, that which is nameless, and that which is not measurable by
thought, is. And that which is, is the most sacred. That is meditation."
publictalk, Madras, Nov. 29, 1981
BY: Indeed, - but who can
Jer*: If by "understand"
you are referring to recognition by the intellect then I would say no one.
But, is there perhaps an "understanding" that does not spring from the
intellect? But, rather comes from the "silence" itself?
BY**: An interesting theory!
- Which can be grasp by an developed intellect. And also every thing else
can be understood by the same intellect, but who can't 'understand' what
means to live it, because it's understanding is just theory.
Jer**: The theory does not
preclude the possibility. But, (and this may be what you were getting at)
being content with the theory as an answer will prevent its realization
in life. One will be satisfied with the conclusion of the theory.
I would also point out that all communications
are conceptual. That is the nature of the spoken word.
BY***: I do not agree: Not
communications are conceptual. I prefer to make a difference between 'communication'
and communication or real communication and that what people normally call
communication. So we know that there is no real communication, but not
because it is all conceptual. It is, because people are conceptual, they
are not open, they are conditioned by their adapted concepts, so they are
only open for that what confirms their own concept. If someone meets another
person with the same background, concept, believe or whatever, then there
seems to be communication, but this is not real communication, it is confirmation
of one's own concept, so it is satisfying and gives a good feeling and
people are looking for it and form groups, lists, parties, clubs etc. to
get it. Do I talk to people which are turning around themselves? Or did
K's sixty years long teaching have an effect and are people in this list
and somewhere else who are at least able to look over their own shadow,
if they are not able yet to jump it...
The limitation of being 'conceptual'
is NOT the nature of spoken word. Words are the vehicle of energy, they
transmit something beyond the meaning. We only can start to communicate,
when we learn to listen. NOT just to the sense of the words but to the
meaning behind. What means: to the expression of this person. What is it
really this person wants to transmit? People are not able to express themselves,
they rarely have learned it, because society doesn't allow it. It is allowed
to use empty phrases, this is socially excepted. But if somebody is trying
to express him or herself then very often is rejected. When we learn to
listen, for this it would be necessary to leave one's own important personality
a bit aside, then we will not get lost in endless discussions and leave
the other and ourself with a hollow feeling. We will see that the other
person don't dare to express his/her need and is talking instead of something
totally different. People want to be reached but at the same time they
build walls around them. Why? Because they are all vulnerable. That's the
nature of 'personality'. I would even go one step further and say: All
this adapted concepts, believes, etc. are a substitute for 'love'. Human
beings want to be loved, that's the most important to feel good, excepted,
secure. Reality is, that there is no love, there is no communication. People
are fighting to get something to feel good and as there is no love, at
least they are searching in the wrong direction, so they grasp what is
offered: Money, food, property, concepts, ideologies, etc. and if nothing
gives satisfaction because it is unreachable then there are the many ways
to make oneself dull and dumb...
Jer**: Everything that you
say is also stated as a concept. This does not mean that you "live it"
as a concept. Just that you can only relate the possibilities to others
BY***: I do NOT agree. Even
the facts seem to give you right I do not agree. If it would be really
like this, that no one can receive anything what I am trying to transmit,
that all is filtered through one's concepts, then I will indeed shut up
and withdraw myself into silence. So I ask all readers of this writings
to respond and to tell me if it is or not like this. This is urgent and
this writing will surely be my last post to this list if it really turns
out that there is no way to communicate on a personal/impersonal level.
Jer**: So, to reject someone's
written or spoken words on the basis that it is a concept is not the same
as a rejection of the validity or integrity of the speaker.
BY***: I am not rejecting
anything, not written or spoken words and not the speaker. As I mentioned
before: I am trying to look behind and trying to relate and respond to
whatever I might see.
Jer**: It is the rejection
of being "satisfied" with the concept as an answer and instead checking
out its validity in the arena of Life and relationship.
BY***: If the 'validity'
is searched for reaching out to go beyond one's personality, then I agree.
If the validity is only used to feed one's structure and to survive in
'life and relationship' then I will not participate any longer.
Jer: While all of this speaks
very much to the point about silence, it also points up the fact that silence
cannot be defined by words.
BY: Right. So why is there
so much talking about it? 90% of the talking going on in this list seems
to be about subjects which can't be talked about.
Jer*: A good question. But
then, why did K speak for more than 60 years on these topics and encourage
BY**: Would be good to know,
but we can't ask him. As this question is directed to me, I can try only
from my own life's experience to answer it: (What might have nothing or
little to do with Krishnamurtis reason for his life long talking)
When first I got in contact with Krishnamurtis
books, this is about 40 years ago, I was fascinated. I didn't really understand
what he was talking about, but I felt, that there was 'something' and this
animated me to go on reading. Other people to whom I had given the books
were only confused...I must add that I had meditated already since about
fife years. And I had started to meditate because of other reasons which
had happened before. (Maybe in another occasion I can talk about it). When
I started to study, I had a clear vision what I was going to do in my life,
so I went on. To make it short: I went from one failure to the next, years
went on, decades passed by, I still had my vision. I was fighting for realization
and finely after about 25 years it was there,... to see - after another
15 years - that it was a failure as well. So 40 years I was busy trying
to realize an illusion! I don't want to say that my vision was an illusion.
No, I was living in an illusion because I was living in another world,
in the world of my vision. So I had to come down, step by step, what means:
dropping one illusion after the other and so getting in contact with reality:
'that what is'. And I can ensure you that in this (my reality) there are
no concepts, theories and believes included. There are still rests of it
and so I am going on with clearing and cleaning up and also still going
on with my vision, so I might be busy for the next 20 years. So ask me
again in 20 years why I was going on with my vision for 60 years...
BY: ... sophisticated words
on a pretty high level shows that people are well trained after a lot of
talking. Probably they feel satisfied about it and being like 'miniature
Krishnamurtis', growing with more training bigger and bigger...
Jer*: It is possible that
this motivates some on this list. But does the mere fact of participation
indicate this is so? If so, and you are so much against this, why would
you bother to write?
BY**: I am not 'against'
it, I am just 'pointing out' as well as you are pointing it out.
Jer: Like all else of this
nature to discover "it" one must start where one is by finding out what"
is not" silence.
BY*: Obviously all the talking
within this list and of course also outside this list "is not" silence.
But just to shut up would not be an alternative that's pretty clear. So
Jer*: What is "obvious" about
all of the talking on this list not being a part of silence? Is this just
a conclusion on your part? Based on your "idea" about silence? And how
do you "know" that "to shut up" is not an alternative for any of us when
we are not participating here?
BY**: It is obvious for me,
even I read only about 10% of the 1.000 messages accumulated from the last
two weeks. I have no 'idea' about silence (what doesn't say that an experience
is precluded) and it should be clear meanwhile what I am trying to point
out. For me it is not an alternative solution to shut up. I think
the one who is doing nothing (not relating) in front of a happening, is
as 'guilty'as the one how is responding and doing something wrong. But
this is my private opinion and I don't expect that somebody is sharing
it with me. I told my friends that they can write on my grave stone: "He
failed, but at least he tried".
Jer:If you equate silence
with the "absence" of thought or external sounds then what is pointed to
above cannot exist and did not exist for K. - So, what is this "noise"
of which K speaks? What is "movement of thought"?
BY*: If I understand it right
I would say: Noise, thoughts and whatever comes out of an individual, are
reactions of the system, in this case of human beings, what means 'personality'.
Jer*: Yes, I would say this
is exactly it, "whatever comes out of an "individual" and "personality".
The key words being "individual" and "personality".
BY**: 'Keywords for what?
BY: This has like all systems,
the in build tendency for survival, what includes all those different ways
to react: withdraw, escape, hold on, defend, attack, collect property,
grow bigger, accumulate fat in the bottom or money in the bank, etc. All
systems do it, all alive systems: from the crystal structure of a stone
to the one cellular amoeba, animals, plants, just the only difference is
that they don't have a bank account... and another difference is that humans
have the possibility to grow beyond their 'personality'. (I agree, this
is a theory in general, but it is also my personal (?) experience). Well,
very few do so and are capable to jump over their own shadow, but there
are indeed a very few so they are the proof that there is 'something' which
goes beyond 'lousy personality'. To start to understand what is 'not' silence
would mean to understand that whatever someone is doing or not doing, talking
or not talking, or whatever comes out of an individual, is a reaction with
the purpose to survive.
Jer*: Yes, and not only on
the physical level but psychologically as well. Keeping the "self" intact.
Keeping that which "defines" oneself. Holding to attachments and rejections
at all cost.
BY: So adapting the ideas
of Krishnamurti and talking about it again and again is nothing else. Or
Jer*: Yes, the "adaptation"of
what K had to say as "concepts" or "ideas" wouldbe more of the same. But,
the discovery for oneself of the factual andreal nature of what K had to
say would not be the "same ol' same ol'."And discussing it with others
is not an automatic indication that one has not seen for oneself "the factual
and real nature of what K had to say". Or is it?
BY**: It would be great and
I would be glad. That would mean that K. didn't fail in his life long attempt.
I am too new in this list and anyway who am I to judge if somebody has
seen "the factual and real nature of what K had to say"?
Jer: Elsewhere K speaks of
thought that is not a movement. Probably likewise undefinable and only
discovered by the negation of that which is not "it".
BY*: If someone doesn't know
what 'it' is, how can this one negate something which is 'not it'? Talking
aboutit what 'it' is or 'not is', is the helpless intent to come 'near'
to it, which in any case must fail because it is a turning around oneself,
trapped in the game of self confirmation with concepts, images, believes,
Jer*: Negation seems valid
for "uncovering"that which "already is". There is no need to "come near"that
which is the very essence of Life and is not separate at all.
BY: 'Essence of Life' is
a concept. By my saying 'coming near to it' is meant to come near to the
realization of one's concept.(Which is an illusion.)
QK: Meditation is the action
of silence. J. Krishnamurti, "Meditations"
BY: Meditation is one of
the few 'activities'(I believe it is the most effective) which can influence
the meditator to grow beyond his/her personality, so with that going beyond
QK: "Silence of the mind
is not achieved by action, it is not a thing to be gone after: it comes
only when conflict ceases." K's Talks 1949-1950
BY: So I am just wondering
how many people of this list are meditating on a regular base, what would
mean 'twice a day for 20 minutes'?
Jer*: And who sets this "standard"as
some sort of definition of what "meditation" is?
BY*: You are right. Yet practice
has shown that people when they start, need some given discipline because
they are not able to take enough responsibility by themselves, specially
because they are entering into an unknown (frightening) field. So to tell
them that they should meditate in a certain form that means certain time
and so on, helps them and so they can receive the benefit from meditation
and then go on in their own way. (I am not meditating every day at a certain
hour, but I do it, sometimes only this one minute on the crossroad during
the traffic light is staying on red...)
BY: And how many of those
who meditate are not trapped in a kind of 'meditation game' which just
is another way to protect their personality.
Jer*: I would suggest that
if they are trapped by someone else's "requirements" or prescribed "plan"(eg:
how, when and how long) then they are indeed caught in a game.
BY*: Mostly games are not
on such a superficial level. I didn't mean the game of others. It's people's
own games which is (natural) part of their personality...
BY: So meditation is not
the same as meditation.
Jer*: Exactly! So why ask
or even wonder about how "frequently" or "long" the people on this list
"meditate". In your web site you, as I do in mine, indicate that meditation
is "life" and therefore not a "practice. "Now, I too see that allowing
the time for silent "sitting" can possibly "reveal" what meditation is
but to impose such sitting is nonsensical. This will only add to the conflict.
And meditation only comes "when conflict ceases."
BY**: 'Meditation is life
and there fore not a practice', this might be said after twenty or
fourty years of meditation, (but not necessarily) To aplicate this on every
body means to create a concept which might be interpreted like: 'I don't
need to sit down to meditate - for me life is meditation...' So those people
will not come to the benefit of meditation which comes out of 'sitting
down twice a day for twenty minutes'. So better not to wait that 'conflict
ceases' to start to meditate. I believe it is even fair to put some
cheese into the 'meditation trap' to motivate people. For example: I can
tell a succesful businessman that he will be even more succesful when he
meditates and I have a lot of convincing arguments for this. But of course
I will not tell him, that also his measurement of values will change and
so that he might chift his interests... With the same reason I will not
tell people what will happen to their 'personality' and that they are in
danger to loose it...
BY*: Who wants something
which goes against one's existence? Or more exact: one's 'lousy personality',
because 'existence' would mean to go beyond and being capable to open oneself
to new horizons.
Jer*: [...] But I do have
to ask, why would your "talking" there be any different from our "talking"
here? Is it not possible that there are those on this list that, like you,
only wish to "point"? Or is it that you disagree with the way that we "point"?
BY**: Did I claim that my
talking is different? I don't think that I have said that I disagree with
the way someone points.