JK on War
blacknblue
world? Is there anything an individual can do to stop the impending
war?
Krishnamurti: War is the spectacular and bloody projection of our
everyday life, is it not?
War is merely an outward expression of our inward state, an
enlargement of our daily action. It is more spectacular, more bloody,
more destructive, but it is the collective result of our individual
activities. Therefore, you and I are responsible for war and what can
we do to stop it? Obviously the ever-impending war cannot be stopped
by you and me, because it is already in movement; it is already taking
place, though at present chiefly on the psychological level. As it is
already in movement, it cannot be stopped- the issues are too many,
too great, and are already committed. But you and I, seeing that the
house is on fire, can understand the causes of that fire, can go away
from it and build in a new place with different materials that are not
combustible, that will not produce other wars. That is all that we
can do. You and I can see what creates wars, and if we are interested
in stopping wars, then we can begin to transform ourselves, who are
the causes of war.
An American lady came to see me a couple of years ago,
during the war. She said she had lost her son in Italy and that she
had another son aged sixteen whom she wanted to save; so we talked the
thing over. I suggested to her that to save her son she had to cease
to be an American; she had to cease to be greedy, cease piling up
wealth, seeking power, domination, and be morally simple – not merely
simple in clothes, in outward things, but simple in her thoughts and
feelings, in her relationships. She said," That is too much. You are
asking far too much. I cannot do it, because circumstances are too
powerful for me to alter." Therefore she was responsible for the
destruction of her son.
Circumstances can be controlled by us, because we have
created the circumstances. Society is the product of relationship,
society changes; merely to rely on legislation, on compulsion, for the
transformation of outward society, while remaining inwardly corrupt,
while continuing inwardly to seek power, position, domination, is to
destroy the outward, however carefully and scientifically built. That
which is inward is always overcoming the outward.
What causes war – religious, political or economic?
Obviously belief, either in nationalism, in an ideology, or in a
particular dogma. If we had no belief but goodwill, love and
consideration between us, then there would be no wars. But we are fed
on beliefs, ideas and dogmas and therefore we breed discontent. The
present crisis is of an exceptional nature and we as human beings must
either pursue the path of constant conflict and continuous wars, which
are the result of our everyday action, or else see the causes of war
and turn our back upon them.
Obviously what causes war is the desire for power,
position, prestige, money; also the disease called nationalism, the
worship of a flag; and the disease of organized religion, the worship
of a dogma. All these are the causes of war; if you as an individual
belong to any of the organized religions, if you are greedy for power,
if you are envious, you are bound to produce a society which will
result in destruction. So again it depends upon you and not on the
leaders – not on so-called statesmen and all the rest of them. It
depends upon you and me but we do not seem to realize that. If once
we really felt the responsibility of our own actions, how quickly we
could bring to an end all these wars, this appalling misery! But you
see, we are indifferent. We have three meals a day, we have our jobs,
we have our bank account, big or little, and we say, "For God's sake,
don't disturb us, leave us alone". The higher up we are, the more we
want security, permanency, tranquility, the more we want to be left
alone, to maintain things fixed as they are; but they cannot be
maintained as they are, because there is nothing to maintain.
Everything is disintegrating. We do not want to face these things, we
do not want to face the fact that you and I are responsible for wars.
You and I may talk about peace, have conferences, sit round a table
and discuss, but inwardly, psychologically, we want power, position,
we are bound by beliefs, by dogmas, for which we are willing to die
and destroy each other. Do you think such men, you and I, can have
peace in the world? To have peace, we must be peaceful; to live
peacefully means not to create antagonism. Peace is not an ideal. To
me, an ideal is merely an escape, an avoidance of what is, a
contradiction of what is. An ideal prevents direct action upon what
is - which we will go into presently, in another talk. [not on this
website] But to have peace, we will have to love, we will have to
begin, not to live an ideal life, but to see things as they are and
act upon them, transform them. As long as each one of us is seeking
psychological security, the physiological security we need – food,
clothing and shelter – is destroyed. We are seeking psychological
security, which does not exist; and we seek it, if we can, through
power, through position, through titles, names – all of which is
destroying physical security. This is an obvious fact, if you look at
it.
To bring about peace in the world, to stop all wars, there
must be a revolution in the individual, in you and me. Economic
revolution without this inward revolution is meaningless, for hunger
is the result of the maladjustment of economic conditions produced by
our psychological states – greed, envy, ill-will and possessiveness.
To put an end to sorrow, to hunger, to war, there must be a
psychological revolution and few of us are willing to face that. We
will discuss peace, plan legislation, create new leagues, the United
Nations and so on and on; but we will not win peace because we will
not give up our position, our authority, our money, our properties,
our stupid lives. To rely on others is utterly futile; others cannot
bring us peace. No leader is going to give us peace, no government,
no army, no country. What will bring peace is inward transformation
which will lead to outward action. Inward transformation is not
isolation, is not a withdrawal from outward action. On the contrary,
there can be right action only when there is right thinking and there
is no right thinking when there is no self-knowledge. Without knowing
yourself, there is no peace.
To put an end to outward war, you must begin to put an end
to war in yourself. Some of you will nod your heads and say, " I
agree", and go outside and do exactly the same as you have been doing
for the last ten or twenty years. Your agreement is merely verbal and
has no significance, for the world miseries and wars are not going to
be stopped by your casual assent. They will be stopped only when you
realize the danger, when you realize your responsibility, when you do
not leave it to somebody else. If you realize the suffering, if you
see the urgency of immediate action and do not postpone, then you will
transform yourself; peace will come only when you yourself are
peaceful, when you yourself are at peace with your neighbour.
1948, second public talk, Bangalore, India; Collected Works of J.
Krishnamurti, Vol V, CD-Rom code BA48T2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questioner: Why do men fight?
Krisnamurti: why do young boys fight? You sometimes fight with your
brother, or other boys here, don't you? Why? You fight over a toy.
Perhaps another boy has taken your ball, or your book and therefore
you fight. Grown-up people fight for exactly the same reason, only
their toys are position, wealth and power. If you want power and I
also want power, we fight, and that is why nations go to war. It is as
simple as that, only philosophers, politicians, and the so-called
religious people complicate it. You know, it is a great art to have an
abundance of knowledge and experience-to know the richness of life,
the beauty of existence, the struggles, the miseries, the laughter,
the tears- and yet keep your mind very simple; and you can have a
simple mind only when you know how to love.
"Think on These Things"(1964,1970 reprint), p. 32
omjaroo
crewf...@yahoo.com (blacknblue) wrote:
> Krishnamurti: War is the spectacular and bloody projection of our
> everyday life, is it not?
>
> War is merely an outward expression of our inward state
snip
Gosh... didn't I just say that?
Namaste
blacknblue
I don't know, but if I remember correctly...you said "there is no
misery, no war, only God"...nothing could be further from the truth
since the first noble truth is LIFE IS SUFFERING. Its easy to be
ignorant and say "all is well", but the fact is all is not well. That
is why there is suffering.
Piotr Neuman
> I don't know, but if I remember correctly...you said "there is no
> misery, no war, only God"...nothing could be further from the truth
> since the first noble truth is LIFE IS SUFFERING. Its easy to be
> ignorant and say "all is well", but the fact is all is not well. That
> is why there is suffering.
All is well becose our True Self (Reality) is always there, waiting for us
to realize it.
On the othre hand in 'waking reality' not all is well since it's filled with
misery and suffering. You can even quote Jesus Christ as he said something
along the lines "poor people were present in the past, are present now and
will be there in future". Misery in it's various forms is embedded in the
'system'...
--
Brachman alone is Real, Om, Om ...
omjaroo
crewf...@yahoo.com (blacknblue) wrote:
To refresh your memory I have cut and paste a few comments from some
recent threads.
Krishnamurti: War is merely an outward expression of our inward state, an
enlargement of our daily action. It is more spectacular, more bloody,
more destructive, but it is the collective result of our individual
activities. Therefore, you and I are responsible for war
Jared: War is what the people waging it, need and want to do. Thatąs why
they are doing it.
Jared: If we support it or oppose it, we become a part of it.
Spiritually speaking we make it our war when we take sides.
Krishamurti: So again it depends upon you and not on the
leaders – not on so-called statesmen and all the rest of them. It
depends upon you and me but we do not seem to realize that. If once
we really felt the responsibility of our own actions, how quickly we
could bring to an end all these wars, this appalling misery!
Jared: When war no longer serves to teach us what we need to learn,
then there will be no war. Any attempt to change or control war without
changing the internal environment of the individual who wages (or
allows) war is like trying to put out a fire by throwing water on the
smoke.
> I don't know, but if I remember correctly...you said "there is no
> misery, no war, only God"...nothing could be further from the truth
In literal reality, nothing else is or could be true... But I have to
admit this is pretty advanced knowledge (although hardly secret) which
is completely lost on a great many (most).
> since the first noble truth is LIFE IS SUFFERING. Its easy to be
> ignorant and say "all is well", but the fact is all is not well. That
> is why there is suffering.
I don't think its easy being ignorant. I find it to be especially
difficult ;-) Also I don't remember saying that, all is well in the
world. In fact I have no recollection in all of my experience, reading
and study of anyone ever putting forth the proposition that all is well.
So I don't understand who it is that says, all is well, when it's not
and thereby causes suffering. It seems to me that the opposite is what's
true. Everyone saying all in not well and this is what justifies our
fearful actions/reactions and in turn causes our suffering.
What I have said more then once is, I know that all is perfect because
all is God.
In the big sense this can't really be understood, it can only be known.
Here is a small example of how this can be thought about. I place my
hand on a hot stove I will get burned and immediately take my hand away.
Hopefully I learned my lesson and I won't make that mistake again. I can
see the situation as bad and lament the pain and curse the stove and
curse God for letting it happen. This would be a pretty typical
reaction. Or I can see the perfection in the situation. That the pain
signaled me to remove my hand before it was burned off and rendered
useless. That intelligence innate in me allowed me to learn not to do
that again and to anticipate other similar possible circumstances. Take
this example and apply it to a larger picture like war and a thoughtful
person might be able to see that the same principles of intelligence
apply.
Namaste
omjaroo
Piotr Neuman <sik...@t.delete.wp.pl> wrote:
> blacknblue wrote:
>
> > I don't know, but if I remember correctly...you said "there is no
> > misery, no war, only God"...nothing could be further from the truth
> > since the first noble truth is LIFE IS SUFFERING. Its easy to be
> > ignorant and say "all is well", but the fact is all is not well. That
> > is why there is suffering.
>
> All is well becose our True Self (Reality) is always there, waiting for us
> to realize it.
True that !
> On the othre hand in 'waking reality' not all is well since it's filled with
> misery and suffering. You can even quote Jesus Christ as he said something
> along the lines "poor people were present in the past, are present now and
> will be there in future".
Mark 14:
1 It was now two days before the Passover and the feast of Unleavened
Bread. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest
him by stealth, and kill him; 2 for they said, "Not during the feast,
lest there be a tumult of the people." 3 And while he was at Bethany in
the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an
alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the
flask and poured it over his head. 4 But there were some who said to
themselves indignantly, "Why was the ointment thus wasted? 5 For this
ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and
given to the poor." And they reproached her. 6 But Jesus said, "Let her
alone; why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7
For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do
good to them; but you will not always have me. 8 She has done what she
could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burying.
> Misery in it's various forms is embedded in the 'system'...
Misery is a blessing and the natural consequence of our behaviors. It is
how the universe lets us know we are doing something wrong. When we
change our behaviors we will get different results. This is the process
by which we grow. This is our nature and the way the "system" is set up.
Why? Beats the hell out of me. I've asked this question more then onec.
Good thing I don't need to know the answer to change my behaviors and
thinking and move along in this world.
Namaste
blacknblue
They need to do it? I can see them WANTING to do it but is there
really a need? Maybe survival, I could see that need. Like if a
certian group of poor
people were in a battle with a group of more wealthy/selfish/unwilling
to share people because they needed their materials for survival.
> Jared: If we support it or oppose it, we become a part of it.
> Spiritually speaking we make it our war when we take sides.
Internally you mean right? So are you saying that war and the
consequences shouldn't be looked at...*
> Krishamurti: So again it depends upon you and not on the
> leaders ? not on so-called statesmen and all the rest of them. It
> depends upon you and me but we do not seem to realize that. If once
> we really felt the responsibility of our own actions, how quickly we
> could bring to an end all these wars, this appalling misery!
>
> Jared: When war no longer serves to teach us what we need to learn,
> then there will be no war. Any attempt to change or control war without
> changing the internal environment of the individual who wages (or
> allows) war is like trying to put out a fire by throwing water on the
> smoke.
control war? That applies to magical thinking like taking sides or
what?? Or do you mean if you are actually fighting the war?
> > I don't know, but if I remember correctly...you said "there is no
> > misery, no war, only God"...nothing could be further from the truth
>
> In literal reality, nothing else is or could be true... But I have to
> admit this is pretty advanced knowledge (although hardly secret) which
> is completely lost on a great many (most).
>
> > since the first noble truth is LIFE IS SUFFERING. Its easy to be
> > ignorant and say "all is well", but the fact is all is not well. That
> > is why there is suffering.
>
> I don't think its easy being ignorant. I find it to be especially
> difficult ;-) Also I don't remember saying that, all is well in the
> world. In fact I have no recollection in all of my experience, reading
> and study of anyone ever putting forth the proposition that all is well.
> So I don't understand who it is that says, all is well, when it's not
> and thereby causes suffering. It seems to me that the opposite is what's
> true. Everyone saying all in not well and this is what justifies our
> fearful actions/reactions and in turn causes our suffering.
I guess you didn't say that, but thats the conclusion that I draw from
reading what you say "there is no misery, no war, only God". That
makes me get the sense that you have the "all is well ideology"....but
since you did say "there is no misery, no war, only God"....I wonder
what makes you say that and yet contridict yourself when you say "all
is not well". How can all not be well and yet there be no war, no
misery, only god? I'm just don't see how these two statements could
go together logically.
> What I have said more then once is, I know that all is perfect because
> all is God.
So you are saying all is not well, but all is perfect? How is that
possible?
> In the big sense this can't really be understood, it can only be known.
known? If you understand it don't you know it?
Like what is knowing and how is it different from understanding? This
might be a very stoopid question, but Id like to know the distinction.
> Here is a small example of how this can be thought about. I place my
> hand on a hot stove I will get burned and immediately take my hand away.
> Hopefully I learned my lesson and I won't make that mistake again. I can
> see the situation as bad and lament the pain and curse the stove and
> curse God for letting it happen. This would be a pretty typical
> reaction. Or I can see the perfection in the situation. That the pain
> signaled me to remove my hand before it was burned off and rendered
> useless. That intelligence innate in me allowed me to learn not to do
> that again and to anticipate other similar possible circumstances. Take
> this example and apply it to a larger picture like war and a thoughtful
> person might be able to see that the same principles of intelligence
> apply.
But are you also saying that one shouldn't take sides on the
issue...when it comes to war? I don't understand what is wrong with
this. Is it like a mental distraction? or why does it even matter?
> Namaste
omjaroo
crewf...@yahoo.com (blacknblue) wrote:
> > Jared: War is what the people waging it, need and want to do. That零 why
Thanks for the great questions. Please stand by. I am trying to wrestle
the time to answer.
Jared
Namaste
omjaroo
snip
> >
> > Jared: War is what the people waging it, need and want to do. Thatąs why
> > they are doing it.
>
> They need to do it? I can see them WANTING to do it but is there
> really a need? Maybe survival, I could see that need. Like if a certian group of poor
> people were in a battle with a group of more wealthy/selfish/unwilling
> to share people because they needed their materials for survival.
In reality (absolute) there are no needs. At any given moment we have
all that we need (not want) to realize our unchanging, perfect existence
in God. In a material sense there can be a strong perceived need as you
suggest, to survive. But there is no real need, even in material
reality, as there are always better ways to get what you need then
fighting. But then there is a need for individuals and the world (race
mind) to learn the lessons fighting provide in order to realize and
transcend our ignorance and fear. The spanking, so to speak, that the
universe supplies us, so we can understand we are making a mistake and
return our awareness to center.
> > Jared: If we support it or oppose it, we become a part of it.
> > Spiritually speaking we make it our war when we take sides.
>
> Internally you mean right? So are you saying that war and the
> consequences shouldn't be looked at...*
Internally yes. When we support or oppose a(the) war then we enter the
conflict. If not in a literal way, then definitely in a spiritual and
emotional way. War and its consequence can be understood and
appropriately dealt with, without personally entering the conflict by
using detachment.
> > Krishamurti: So again it depends upon you and not on the
> > leaders ? not on so-called statesmen and all the rest of them. It
> > depends upon you and me but we do not seem to realize that. If once
> > we really felt the responsibility of our own actions, how quickly we
> > could bring to an end all these wars, this appalling misery!
> >
> > Jared: When war no longer serves to teach us what we need to learn,
> > then there will be no war. Any attempt to change or control war without
> > changing the internal environment of the individual who wages (or
> > allows) war is like trying to put out a fire by throwing water on the
> > smoke.
> control war? That applies to magical thinking like taking sides or
> what?? Or do you mean if you are actually fighting the war?
You may have heard the saying, being in the world but not of the world.
It's this type of detachment that allows one to physically, and
spiritually act in a material world without becoming caught up in the
illusions and falsehoods with which we create fear, hate and discontent.
This is the jnana yoga path. The practice of constantly identifying
(discrimination) and reminding one's self of the truth of existence
(God), while navigating the material world.
> > > I don't know, but if I remember correctly...you said "there is no
> > > misery, no war, only God"...nothing could be further from the truth
> >
> > In literal reality, nothing else is or could be true... But I have to
> > admit this is pretty advanced knowledge (although hardly secret) which
> > is completely lost on a great many (most).
> >
> > > since the first noble truth is LIFE IS SUFFERING. Its easy to be
> > > ignorant and say "all is well", but the fact is all is not well. That
> > > is why there is suffering.
> >
> > I don't think its easy being ignorant. I find it to be especially
> > difficult ;-) Also I don't remember saying that, all is well in the
> > world.
snip
> I guess you didn't say that, but thats the conclusion that I draw from
> reading what you say "there is no misery, no war, only God". That
> makes me get the sense that you have the "all is well ideology"....but
> since you did say "there is no misery, no war, only God"....I wonder
> what makes you say that and yet contridict yourself when you say "all
> is not well". How can all not be well and yet there be no war, no
> misery, only god? I'm just don't see how these two statements could
> go together logically.
I'll certainly give you that one :-) They do however make sense when you
have more information. ;-)
> > What I have said more then once is, I know that all is perfect because
> > all is God.
>
> So you are saying all is not well, but all is perfect? How is that
> possible?
There in lays the jnani's challenge. Perhaps you would like to take it
up? This path Involves a lot of reading, study and inquiry. You seem to
have logical abilities and a strong drive for inquiry. How are your
study habits?
> > In the big sense this can't really be understood, it can only be known.
> known?
>If you understand it don't you know it?
> Like what is knowing and how is it different from understanding? This
> might be a very stoopid question, but Id like to know the distinction.
Understanding is an intellectual process, knowing is an internal state
of being. Here is an example of a jnanic exercise. Do this simple
exercise and perhaps you will come away with a notion of how in the
final analysis, all answers come from the self.
Try reaching into your personal life or experience and remember a time
when you fully understood something but you really didn't know it. And
vice versa, when you just knew something but you didn't understand it.
Can you see the distiction?
Sometimes, knowing and understanding can be the same but often times
they are not. So how might this be important in someone's life? Knowing
something can engender great personal resolve and is what faith is made
of. Understanding something by its self does not rise to the level of
faith. Hope perhaps, but not faith. Faith is about knowing and then
acting (or not) on that knowledge.
>
> > Here is a small example of how this can be thought about. I place my
> > hand on a hot stove I will get burned and immediately take my hand away.
> > Hopefully I learned my lesson and I won't make that mistake again. I can
> > see the situation as bad and lament the pain and curse the stove and
> > curse God for letting it happen. This would be a pretty typical
> > reaction. Or I can see the perfection in the situation. That the pain
> > signaled me to remove my hand before it was burned off and rendered
> > useless. That intelligence innate in me allowed me to learn not to do
> > that again and to anticipate other similar possible circumstances. Take
> > this example and apply it to a larger picture like war and a thoughtful
> > person might be able to see that the same principles of intelligence
> > apply.
>
> But are you also saying that one shouldn't take sides on the
> issue...when it comes to war? I don't understand what is wrong with
> this. Is it like a mental distraction? or why does it even matter?
Hope I answered this one above. If not, let me know.
Namaste
blacknblue
> > > Jared: If we support it or oppose it, we become a part of it.
> > > Spiritually speaking we make it our war when we take sides.
> >
> > Internally you mean right? So are you saying that war and the
> > consequences shouldn't be looked at...*
>
> Internally yes. When we support or oppose a(the) war then we enter the
> conflict. If not in a literal way, then definitely in a spiritual and
> emotional way. War and its consequence can be understood and
> appropriately dealt with, without personally entering the conflict by
> using detachment.
True. I can see that taking sides, as you said will only bring
anger/hatred into mind. I get really pissed when I see the
inhumanities that occur across the world, but really this is nothing
new...Its been going on since the beginning of time in this world...I
suppose its something that has to be accepted. Not to say that one
shouldn't just sit on his/her butt and say "ah screw it", but maybe
take activism without being emotionally attached to any outcome.
> > > Krishamurti: So again it depends upon you and not on the
> > > leaders ? not on so-called statesmen and all the rest of them. It
> > > depends upon you and me but we do not seem to realize that. If once
> > > we really felt the responsibility of our own actions, how quickly we
> > > could bring to an end all these wars, this appalling misery!
> > >
> > > Jared: When war no longer serves to teach us what we need to learn,
> > > then there will be no war. Any attempt to change or control war without
> > > changing the internal environment of the individual who wages (or
> > > allows) war is like trying to put out a fire by throwing water on the
> > > smoke.
>
> > control war? That applies to magical thinking like taking sides or
> > what?? Or do you mean if you are actually fighting the war?
>
> You may have heard the saying, being in the world but not of the world.
> It's this type of detachment that allows one to physically, and
> spiritually act in a material world without becoming caught up in the
> illusions and falsehoods with which we create fear, hate and discontent.
> This is the jnana yoga path. The practice of constantly identifying
> (discrimination) and reminding one's self of the truth of existence
> (God), while navigating the material world.
True. We are to be detached, yet also explore the world and the
people that are in it. When we learn about someone else or about
something in the world, we are actually learning about ourselves
IMO...and no book can replace real life experiences that help humanity
learn. Although, there are people who are of great faith and
knowledge (probably built up from previous lives) who need no
experience or worldly knowledge and immediately start heading for the
goal of yoga.
I definately love the wisdom that Jnana yoga offers. I consider it a
necessity to have knowledge of God. All yogas strive for union with
God and I consider it a necessity to have some understanding of what
and who that God is that each seeker is to be united with.
I don't consider myself really developed in morals, and
self-discipline yet to take up the path of Jnana yoga, but I
definately give it some study:)
I like to think in terms of duty. That is..."What is my duty?" I ask
myself for now. Strengthening morals by practice, getting my degree
so I can make a decent living, becoming more independent....those are
my duties. I look to fulfill first...yama and niyama. I also
practice hatha yoga and pranayama, but I believe duties should come
first.
Off the subject: Albert Einstein did some of the greatest Jnani work
with his theory on relativity. I don't know how he was as a person
(kind or arrogant, peaceful or warlike), but I admire the man for
changing the conscience of the masses when it comes to understanding
the universe...It goes a long way to the understanding of God.
> > > In the big sense this can't really be understood, it can only be known.
> > known?
>
> >If you understand it don't you know it?
> > Like what is knowing and how is it different from understanding? This
> > might be a very stoopid question, but Id like to know the distinction.
>
> Understanding is an intellectual process, knowing is an internal state
> of being. Here is an example of a jnanic exercise. Do this simple
> exercise and perhaps you will come away with a notion of how in the
> final analysis, all answers come from the self.
>
> Try reaching into your personal life or experience and remember a time
> when you fully understood something but you really didn't know it. And
> vice versa, when you just knew something but you didn't understand it.
> Can you see the distiction?
True.
> Sometimes, knowing and understanding can be the same but often times
> they are not. So how might this be important in someone's life? Knowing
> something can engender great personal resolve and is what faith is made
> of. Understanding something by its self does not rise to the level of
> faith. Hope perhaps, but not faith. Faith is about knowing and then
> acting (or not) on that knowledge.
Does faith also have to do with courage? Or are they two different
things?
> >
> > > Here is a small example of how this can be thought about. I place my
> > > hand on a hot stove I will get burned and immediately take my hand away.
> > > Hopefully I learned my lesson and I won't make that mistake again. I can
> > > see the situation as bad and lament the pain and curse the stove and
> > > curse God for letting it happen. This would be a pretty typical
> > > reaction. Or I can see the perfection in the situation. That the pain
> > > signaled me to remove my hand before it was burned off and rendered
> > > useless. That intelligence innate in me allowed me to learn not to do
> > > that again and to anticipate other similar possible circumstances. Take
> > > this example and apply it to a larger picture like war and a thoughtful
> > > person might be able to see that the same principles of intelligence
> > > apply.
> >
> > But are you also saying that one shouldn't take sides on the
> > issue...when it comes to war? I don't understand what is wrong with
> > this. Is it like a mental distraction? or why does it even matter?
>
> Hope I answered this one above. If not, let me know.
Got it. Appreciate the reply:)
b
> Namaste
omjaroo
snip
> True. I can see that taking sides, as you said will only bring
> anger/hatred into mind. I get really pissedŠ
Can you see how you instantly become part of the conflict when you have
an emotional stake in the outcome?
> when I see the inhumanities that occur across the world, but really this is nothing
> new...Its been going on since the beginning of time in this world...I
> suppose its something that has to be accepted.
The acceptance of the Truth at the deepest levels and the rejection of
falsehoods/fabrications is the point of yoga. To differentiate
(discriminate) between the two is the purpose of jnana.
> Not to say that one shouldn't just sit on his/her butt and say "ah screw it", but maybe
> take activism without being emotionally attached to any outcome.
For any activism to be effective, it first needs first to be internal
(genuine). One must first stop the internal war (right/wrong, good/evil,
us/them).
There is a saying in AA that goes; "you can't give away what you don't
have." How can one hope to stop war when one hasn't given up those
qualities that lead to war in their own heart and life. The first of
which is "winning" or insisting on getting what you want (like an end to
war?). This is the gist of what KM is saying in the following quote you
posted.
> > > > Krishamurti: So again it depends upon you and not on the
> > > > leaders ? not on so-called statesmen and all the rest of them. It
> > > > depends upon you and me but we do not seem to realize that. If once
> > > > we really felt the responsibility of our own actions, how quickly we
> > > > could bring to an end all these wars, this appalling misery!
> > > >
snip.
> I don't consider myself really developed in morals, and
> self-discipline yet to take up the path of Jnana yoga,
Good thing self-discipline and morals are not required :-) or else I
would still be groveling in ignorance and fear. Excuses don't work for
jnanis (or anyone else for that matter). Like the Nike ad says, Just Do
It!
> I like to think in terms of duty. That is..."What is my duty?" I ask
> myself for now. Strengthening morals by practice, getting my degree
> so I can make a decent living, becoming more independent....those are
> my duties. I look to fulfill first...yama and niyama. I also
> practice hatha yoga and pranayama, but I believe duties should come
> first.
Dudy has nothing to do with jnana, or enlightenment or God.
> Off the subject: Albert Einstein did some of the greatest Jnani work
> with his theory on relativity.
True thatŠ! He was a consummate jnani. He thought his way to God.
I don't know how he was as a person
> (kind or arrogant, peaceful or warlike), but I admire the man for
> changing the conscience of the masses when it comes to understanding
> the universe...It goes a long way to the understanding of God.
Very perceptiveŠ
> > > > In the big sense this can't really be understood, it can only be known.
> > > known?
> >
> > >If you understand it don't you know it?
> > > Like what is knowing and how is it different from understanding? This
> > > might be a very stoopid question, but Id like to know the distinction.
> >
> > Understanding is an intellectual process, knowing is an internal state
> > of being. Here is an example of a jnanic exercise. Do this simple
> > exercise and perhaps you will come away with a notion of how in the
> > final analysis, all answers come from the self.
> >
> > Try reaching into your personal life or experience and remember a time
> > when you fully understood something but you really didn't know it. And
> > vice versa, when you just knew something but you didn't understand it.
> > Can you see the distinction?
>
> True.
Snip
> Faith is about knowing and then acting (or not) on that knowledge.
> Does faith also have to do with courage? Or are they two different
> things?
Faith (what we know) is what is required for us to have the courage to
act on our faith (what we know).
Jared
Namaste
blacknblue
> In article <b7362ea0.04060...@posting.google.com>,
> crewf...@yahoo.com (blacknblue) wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > True. I can see that taking sides, as you said will only bring
>
> Can you see how you instantly become part of the conflict when you have
> an emotional stake in the outcome?
True. It is an attachment though as well. I mean, its a pleasure in
a sense. No attachments will magically disappear...It requires
persistant restraint to get over long time habits...and not only
that...the old habits have to be filled with new ones that are more
constructive/productive.
> > when I see the inhumanities that occur across the world, but really this is nothing
> > new...Its been going on since the beginning of time in this world...I
> > suppose its something that has to be accepted.
>
> The acceptance of the Truth at the deepest levels and the rejection of
> falsehoods/fabrications is the point of yoga. To differentiate
> (discriminate) between the two is the purpose of jnana.
To differentiate between truth and fabrications of reality?
> > Not to say that one shouldn't just sit on his/her butt and say "ah screw it", but maybe
> > take activism without being emotionally attached to any outcome.
>
> For any activism to be effective, it first needs first to be internal
> (genuine). One must first stop the internal war (right/wrong, good/evil,
> us/them).
Yes. I can see that. A group of activists may be able to stop a war,
but if there is wars inside themselves...their activism/ideologies
will contribute to future wars.
> There is a saying in AA that goes; "you can't give away what you don't
> have." How can one hope to stop war when one hasn't given up those
> qualities that lead to war in their own heart and life. The first of
> which is "winning" or insisting on getting what you want (like an end to
> war?). This is the gist of what KM is saying in the following quote you
> posted.
Again our own ideologies/beliefs contribute to wars...they must be
dropped. The inner war/spiritual is just as bad as the real battles
being waged.
> > > > > Krishamurti: So again it depends upon you and not on the
> > > > > leaders ? not on so-called statesmen and all the rest of them. It
> > > > > depends upon you and me but we do not seem to realize that. If once
> > > > > we really felt the responsibility of our own actions, how quickly we
> > > > > could bring to an end all these wars, this appalling misery!
> > > > >
>
> snip.
>
> > I don't consider myself really developed in morals, and
> > self-discipline yet to take up the path of Jnana yoga,
>
> Good thing self-discipline and morals are not required :-) or else I
> would still be groveling in ignorance and fear. Excuses don't work for
> jnanis (or anyone else for that matter). Like the Nike ad says, Just Do
> It!
>
> > I like to think in terms of duty. That is..."What is my duty?" I ask
> > myself for now. Strengthening morals by practice, getting my degree
> > so I can make a decent living, becoming more independent....those are
> > my duties. I look to fulfill first...yama and niyama. I also
> > practice hatha yoga and pranayama, but I believe duties should come
> > first.
>
> Dudy has nothing to do with jnana, or enlightenment or God.
I guess it really depends on ones own convictions...whether duty
really matters or not. I tend to think there are certian roles each
of us have in life. You can say that practicing yoga is your
duty...but I guess duty is something that we impose on ourselves and
could be considered "good/evil" type thinking. So maybe you are right
with this statement.
<snip>