K on our relationship with the world crisis:

[wim]

What I want to do this evening is more or less briefly and simply to put to you in resume the formulation of some of these ideas. So, as I say, since the individual is confused, you are confused. Since you as an individual are confused you are bound to spread confusion. Your State, your Government, your Religion, each one of these is bound to be confused because you are the State and you bring about your Society. The Society is the relationship between two individuals and that Society that is produced shares the greed, the lust for power and all the rest of it. So the confusion is in us and it projects itself in action into the world and we create the world crisis. After all war is only an outward and spectacular result of our daily life. So, if we do not transform our daily life and bear responsibility for it, not superficially but fundamentally, really and profoundly, we cannot escape from this chaos that is coming. And therefore, for me, the importance of the individual is supreme, but not as the individual in opposition to Society, in opposition to the whole. I think we should be very clear about this point. When we regard the individual and his function in society we have to consider the individual as a whole and not only the individual's activity which may be antisocial. It is a worldwide problem and it is exactly the same in America, in Europe and Damascus. I heard two Syrians talking about this problem in French in the same way as you and I talk here. Because you and I have brought about this catastrophe, we should be responsible for it, because no leader, no guru, no politician, no teacher is going to save us. Since the problem is vital and is constantly undergoing change, no formula can solve it.

[Howard Ward]

Hello Wim & whomever - First I want to mention that I like the new direction you've taken this email group. Next I'd like to mention that I feel I've been rather lucky to have been living only an hour's drive from Ojai, CA where the Krishnamurti Foundation of America is located, as it has provided an opportunity to engage in hundreds of face-to-face dialogues over the last couple decades. Recently it became very clear that most of these groups have been "missing the point" that K was making. Let me use a K-quote to illustrate:


K: "What is actual is what is, and everything else is non-real." (The Only Revolution)


** "What is actual," I suggest is "what is actually occurring in an actual dialogue." One aspect of "what is actually occurring" is "words being used," a.k.a. "talking." But these "words & concepts" are only "words & concepts," not the "actuality" the words attempt to point to.


Here's another K-quote to shed further light on the point I'm making:


"Why do we cling to the idea, deliberately or unconsciously, and put aside the actual? The idea, the pattern, is self-projected; it is a form of self-worship, of self-perpetuation, and hence gratifying." – Commentaries on Living


**The point I'm attempting to make, also by using words, is that most dialogues tend to "focus on the words," and when this happens "observation of what is actual" is for the most part, not happening, because most everyone is fixated on the concepts.

If a 'feeling' arises, or a 're-action' occurs in response to what someone else may suggest in a dialogue, 'that feeling' is "what is actually occurring." But most dialogues, it seems, immediately "move away" from the actual feeling to "talking about it, conceptually."

My point is this: K is suggesting to observe "the actual." He's not suggesting to talk about "what we think we know." And if we are going to see what he is attempting to point to, we won't find the "actual" in his words, or anyone else's "words." The observation needs to be on "what is actually occurring." And what may be observed, upon observing what is, is that we often go off into "thought & imagination," rather than simply "observing life."

This makes online dialogue a bit challenging, but I think an emphasis on "observing oneself" and "what is," can overcome this limitation of having an online dialogue.

So, with that 'suggestion', I'll offer the following responses to your message:


(Wim) What I want to do this evening is more or less briefly and simply to put to you in resume the formulation of some of these ideas. So, as I say, since the individual is confused, you are confused. Since you as an individual are confused you are bound to spread confusion.

**This suggestion may be an accurate one, but I would only suggest that we examine or explore this issue from the openness of "I don't know." It may prove to be an accurate description, but let's not assume we know anything and look together. If we "assume" it's true, or "think we know this," we've moved into "the conceptual imagery." We're no longer observing, we're 'thinking we know something.' And there's usually an "observer, separate from the observed," in this "conceptual knowing."

By the way, I watched a K-video recently at a monthly dialogue at the KFA, and K was asked, "What is inquiry?" And his response was: "Observation."

He didn't say talking or thinking, he said observation. Seeing what is. Yet I suggest that most of the time humans go into talking about what they think, rather than simply observing what is. And this 'shift' away from observing what is, over to talking or thinking about it seems to be 'swift & subtle'. It's so habitually ingrained that we don't generally notice that we've stopped observing and have moved into talking about thought-stories.


(cont.)
(Wim) Your State, your Government, your Religion, each one of these is bound to be confused because you are the State and you bring about your Society. The Society is the relationship between two individuals and that Society that is produced shares the greed, the lust for power and all the rest of it. So the confusion is in us and it projects itself in action into the world and we create the world crisis. After all war is only an outward and spectacular result of our daily life. So, if we do not transform our daily life and bear responsibility for it, not superficially but fundamentally, really and profoundly, we cannot escape from this chaos that is coming.

**Observing the actuality this seems to describe, this does seem to be an accurate description. The "state" is a reflection of the social consciousness. The people running an agency come out of that citizenry, they share the same cultural consciousness, and they create laws that reflect those cultural views.

And if we simply act out of the same habitual thought patterns, there will be no transformation.

(cont)
(Wim) And therefore, for me, the importance of the individual is supreme, but not as the individual in opposition to Society, in opposition to the whole. I think we should be very clear about this point. When we regard the individual and his function in society we have to consider the individual as a whole and not only the individual's activity which may be antisocial. It is a worldwide problem and it is exactly the same in America, in Europe and Damascus. I heard two Syrians talking about this problem in French in the same way as you and I talk here. Because you and I have brought about this catastrophe, we should be responsible for it, because no leader, no guru, no politician, no teacher is going to save us. Since the problem is vital and is constantly undergoing change, no formula can solve it.

**It also seems clear that we now live in a 'global world' where countries are directly influencing other countries. And it's also clear that this is "one human family" living on this small planet.

So, if we see that the current "world crisis" is "our responsibility," what now?

"What is the actual confusion?"

"What's at the root of human conflict, fragmentation, and division?"

Here's what I see: Humans don't meet one another "human to human." They generally meet "one virtual reality" to another "virtual reality."

By 'virtual reality' I mean the collection of thoughts, beliefs & opinions, that form what we call "our world view." The "subjective viewpoints we have" about the actuality.

But most people seem unaware that this collection of thoughts & images is nothing more than a "virtual reality," what K referred to as "the non real" in the quote I proved above.

As long as humans continue to confuse these collections of beliefs & opinions for "truth," or "the actual," I suspect the conflict and division will continue in much the same manner.

That's how I would 'describe' what seems to actually be occurring.

Regards - Howard W.




--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Krishnamurti world crisis group" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to krishnamurtiworldcri...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to krishnamurtiwo...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/krishnamurtiworldcrisisgroup.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[wim]

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to krishnamurtiworldcrisisgroup+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to krishnamurtiworldcrisisgroup@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/krishnamurtiworldcrisisgroup.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Hello Howard,

Thanks for responding to the K quote I posted. I agree that it is important to look at the 'what is' and this is really what K's teachings are about because we have lost touch with reality and the teachings help us to understand to get back to reality.. Although it is easier said than done. We also need to realize that the 'what is' is not easy to define because the 'what should be' is also part of the 'what is''; they are real because they are part of the brain but the observer is not real. Once we realize this we are in touch with the 'what is' and we also understand that 'we are the world' because what happens inside of us is also happening outside of us as is explained by the quote.

It is certainly helpful to start from the position 'Í don't know' because people start from so many assumptions when they explore the teachings and they use excuses not to go into it even the teachings are used as an excuse not to go into it as is clear from my other posting recently. It is good to come up with the example of war related to this post. If we would look at the consequences of war rather than the war aims then we would not go to war and this is one of the reasons that no pictures are made when war is going on although this has changed somewhat because of the social media. Often people come up with the defense argument not to go into the issue.  

Regards Wim 

[Howard Ward]

Hello Wim & anyone else interested -

Hello Howard,

Thanks for responding to the K quote I posted. I agree that it is important to look at the 'what is' and this is really what K's teachings are about because we have lost touch with reality and the teachings help us to understand to get back to reality.. Although it is easier said than done. We also need to realize that the 'what is' is not easy to define because the 'what should be' is also part of the 'what is''; they are real because they are part of the brain but the observer is not real. Once we realize this we are in touch with the 'what is' and we also understand that 'we are the world' because what happens inside of us is also happening outside of us as is explained by the quote.

**I'm not sure what you actually mean when you say: the 'what should be' is also part of the 'what is''; they are real because they are part of the brain."

I suspect we are seeing basically the same thing, but if we look or observe "what is actually occurring now," and try to find the "what should be," where do we observe it? Is it anything concrete or tangible? Or do we only find "an idea" or "thought concept" of some "imagined other state" that isn't actually present? Perhaps it is a "recording in the brain," but it's only reality seems to be as an aspect of the imagination. If the "what should be" is only present as a "thought-story," then it's the non-real.

And that's just a description of course, and the question is: What do we see? Do we see an "actuality of a what should be," or do we see only a thought construction that has no tangible reality outside of being a fictional thought concept?

(cont)

(Wim) It is certainly helpful to start from the position 'Í don't know' because people start from so many assumptions when they explore the teachings and they use excuses not to go into it even the teachings are used as an excuse not to go into it as is clear from my other posting recently. It is good to come up with the example of war related to this post. If we would look at the consequences of war rather than the war aims then we would not go to war and this is one of the reasons that no pictures are made when war is going on although this has changed somewhat because of the social media. Often people come up with the defense argument not to go into the issue.

**I'm basically only familiar with the "American culture," and there's an old saying here that goes like this: "You shouldn't talk about religion or politics " The suggestion that people don't want to go into the issue of war reminded me of this. But it seems clear that "not talking" about these issues is "not working well for us."

But I think K was correct in suggesting that knowing oneself is the beginning of wisdom. And if we don't understand ourselves, the first step will likely be the wrong step.

So I was wondering, "What shall we look at together?" So I went to your earlier message and found the following paragraph that I have a question about:

"Once one gets around these escape mechanisms then it becomes clear that it is valid to look at the teachings as a whole. Once one sees this then the issue of what to do with it is important. First it is important to realize that what K said was real for him. The important thing is that it becomes real for us as well. If the things K says are not real for us then it is important not to take them on board otherwise they become conditioning with the same consequences as other types of conditioning. Once we see that the whole of the teachings are real then almost certainly we stop using effort."

**My question is this: What IS the teaching? What would we be seeing "the whole of?"

When people ask me what K's teachings are, I generally suggest: "To look directly at life. what actually is, for oneself," and to "observe oneself in relationship."

What many people seem to do is "get stuck in the words." Observing oneself means "observing what is." It doesn't, it seems to me, suggest to get stuck in the words or descriptions, K's or anyone's words.

One of the questions K did seem to ask frequently, related to this, was the question: Can we see the nature of the 'whole movement of thought'?

In other words: Can we see that every projection of thought, or what we sometimes call "the mind," is merely "a projection of thought," a.k.a. "the non-real"?

Can we see that whenever we view life through 'thought projections' we are looking at the non real, rather than what is actually present?

This seems to be the intent behind his frequent question of: "Do we ever look at a tree?" Or do we merely 'think' about a tree, so that we're looking at an image in thought, rather than the actual tree. And, do we ever look at the actual person in front of us, or do we look through a virtual reality of thoughts and images?

Do we see that whenever we're "off in thought" that we are looking at the non real? We may be looking at "actual ideas and concepts," but do we see clearly that whatever thought projects is the non real? Which would include thought projects like a "me" or an "I" or a "Howard," or thought imagery of a Christian, Muslim, American, African person, or the imagined thought projections of "good, bad, right, wrong, like and dislike?"

Do we see that all of those thought projections are what K would call "the non real?"

And what I'm asking is: "do WE SEE that," or do we merely see K's words written on a page?

Regards - Howard