Chayacitra

=== JKrishnamurti.org – Daily Quote ===

Fear is not merely on the surface of the mind

To understand this problem of fear, you have to go into it most profoundly, because fear is not merely on the surface of the mind. Fear is not just being afraid of your neighbour or of losing a job; it is much deeper than that, and to understand it requires deep penetration.

To penetrate deeply you need a very sharp mind, and the mind is not made sharp by mere argumentation or avoidance. One has to go into the problem step by step, and that is why it is very important to comprehend this whole process of naming.

When you name a whole group of people by calling them Muslims, or what you will, you have got rid of them; you don’t have to look at them as individuals, so the name, the word, has prevented you from being a human being in relationship with other human beings.

In the same way, when you name a feeling, you are not looking at the feeling, you are not totally with the fact.

The Collected Works, Vol. XI – 151

=== Thoughts ===

Let’s continue our discussion of “conceptualization”, or conceptual thought (as Tibetan Buddhists would call it). The giving of names, the formation of images, and the use attachment to ideas unavoidably lead to marginalization, misinterpretation, and divisions between the “ourselves” and “our environment” (a division which in fact does not exist- but we’ll get to that later).

It’s useful to return to the same subject, repeatedly, and to discuss it with different examples and different words to remind ourselves that the words themselves and the “ideas” expressed are not the important part of the conversation. The important part is that we sit still for one second, forget about ourselves, and listen to something that someone else has to say.

Keep in mind that no matter how beautifully expressed the idea, no matter how persuasive the argument, and no matter how much you might agree or disagree with it- the description is not the described! If you are hungry and I explain to you the existence of a fantastic meal, would it do you any good? If we are lost, and someone describes to us how to get out of the forest, but we simply agree with them and leave it at that, does it do us any good?

If we explain an idea to someone a fantastic idea- with terrific examples, beautiful language, a flowing cadence and amazing metaphors, but they simply agree with it rather than live it, has it done them any good?

The mere intellectual understanding of an idea, the formation of knowledge as memory of a fact- such as the fact we’re presently discussing- and the agreeing or disagreeing with that idea leads to nothing more than adding another link in the chain of attachment to our endless process of categorization, conceptualization, and divisiveness.

Rather than simply memorizing an idea, a string of words, or a conceptual theory, it’s our duty as responsible human beings to LIVE the described action in our daily lives. Stop creating images, stop conceptualizing everything, and stop dividing yourself from all that exists around “you”.

It’s not important that we can repeat Krishnamurti’s words, or the Buddha’s, or Jesus’s, or anyone else’s for that matter- but it IS important that we can live those ideas out in our daily routine, in our daily living.

By living them out in daily life, in our behavior, ideas become action; unrestrainted by thought, conceptualization, and the divsion of the self. And only action has the power to change the world, by first changing “ourselves”.

That is true meditation. That is real living. And that is what it’s all about.

The East Fork of the San Gabriel River

Big Sheep Mountain Wilderness, near Arcadia, CA

Pentax K10D with DA* 16-50mm

=== JKrishnamurti.org – Daily Quote ===

Have you ever looked at fear?

Have you ever faced fear? Please listen to the question carefully. Have you ever looked at fear? Or in the moment of being aware of fear, are you already in a state of flight from the fact? I will go into it a little bit, and you will see what I mean.

We name, we give a term to our various feelings, don’t we? In saying, ‘I am angry’, we have given a term, a name, a label to a particular feeling. Now, please watch your own minds very clearly. When you have a feeling, you name that feeling; you call it anger, lust, love, pleasure, don’t you? And this naming of the feeling is a process of intellection which prevents you from looking at the fact, that is, at the feeling.

You know, when you see a bird and say to yourself that it is a parrot or a pigeon or a crow, you are not looking at the bird. You have already ceased to look at the fact because the word parrot or pigeon or crow has come between you and the fact.

This is not some difficult intellectual feat but a process of the mind that must be understood. If you would go into the problem of fear or the problem of authority or the problem of pleasure or the problem of love, you must see that naming, giving a label, prevents you from looking at the fact….

The Collected Works, Vol. XI – 350

=== Thoughts ===

Naming- the giving of labels- classification, and conceptualization are no more than an abstraction from the actual. The process cannot be completed without bringing our own baggage, our mental history, and our subjective interpretations into play.

To see things for what they truly are, we must resist the temptation to assign them neat little preconceived categories, predefined  ideas, or prejudiced conclusions. Failing to avoid that, we’re simply doomed to forever look at the world through a glass- darkly.

The conceptualization, the categorization, creates a division between the now constructed “us” and the constructed “not us”, a division which in reality, has no right to exist, and does not exist. Remember, the universe and everything in it is impermanent, in a constant state of flux, and has no essential essence to it

As we’ve discussed before, in categorization and conceptualization there can be no relationship. It’s the very same problem as our tendency to relate to the “image”, rather than the thing itself.

=== JKrishnamurti.org – Daily Quote ===

How to look at your fear

Do please listen to this, it is not complicated. It demands attention, and attention has its own discipline; you don’t have to introduce a system of discipline.

You know, sirs, what this world needs is not politicians or more engineers, but free human beings. Engineers and scientists may be necessary, but it seems to me that what the world needs is human beings who are free, who are creative, who have no fear. And most of us are ridden with fear.

If you can go profoundly into fear and really understand it, you will come out with innocency, so that your mind is clear. That is what we need, and that is why it is very important to understand how to look at a fact, how to look at your fear.

That is the whole problem – not how to get rid of fear, not how to be courageous, not what to do about fear, but to be fully with the fact.

The Collected Works, Vol. XI – 349

=== Thoughts ===

The one true ‘fact’ that all of us must eventually face is that we are riddled with fear. Or at least I am. In fact, I’m painfully aware of my many fears, the fear of loneliness, fear of choosing the wrong path, fear of regretting the things I’m doing now in the future, and even the fear of fearing all these things.

But what really is fear, other than a miscalculation- a misunderstanding if you will- of my present surroundings and situation?

And where does this fear come from?

Could it present itself without the “I”, without the background of the all-important and idolatrous “self”, to which I cling, for no other apparent reason than my having been conditioned to do so?

And could fear- that consuming, nagging doubt- which transforms me from a creative man of action into a frozen, pathetic and wretched creature of indecision emerge into my consciousness without the assistance of thought?

I’m asking you, just as I’m asking myself- What place has this fear in your daily life; what purpose does it serve?

Why do we put up with it, why do we nourish it, and sustain it, when it generates nothing but confusion, chaos, disorder, and pain?

Could it be that fear is the prime weapon of the “self” in it’s struggle to remain relevant?

Could fear itself be the sole force and very sustenance of that ridiculous, illogical division of the “me” and the  “not-me”-?

Of the “I” as a separate entity from the “you”? From the environment? And from the universe at large?

There’s nothing quite like it, really, the tender insides of a flower.

Those precious parts, so delicate that even the slightest act of carelessness would mean cataclysm, an obliteration of beauty, and of purpose, from even the slightest touch.

I just can’t but help the feeling that I’m being allowed entrance into a magnificent space, as holy as the cathedral, bearing witness to the living manifestation and physical expression of creation itself.

And in light of all this, it doesn’t even seem that outlandish, when one stops to really think it through, that Theologists relied upon the flower as the crux in their argument for the very existence of God.

You see, according to them, flowers were purposefully designed and placed on this planet solely for our enjoyment, to stimulate mankind’s aesthetic sensibilities as a living testimonial to God’s immaculate attention to detail and devotion to human beings as his absolute favorite of all his many creations.

And honestly, who could blame them for reaching such a conclusion? After all, the argument itself dates to a time well before humanity’s “discovery” of the infrared spectrum (which insects were already quite well aware of), and perhaps even to an era before (Westerner’s) were even aware of the planet’s spherical nature!

I can’t help but wonder though, knowing that the flower’s beauty- it’s explosive and arresting color, it’s intricacy and exquisite detail- are no more than a side product of infrared patterns designed to attract insect attention- Why would people continue to defend the same outdated, illogical, and ridiculous argument, even to this very day?

And don’t get me wrong here, it’s not that I disagree with the logic of the argument itself, that the flower was created by “God”, because certainly that force, whatever it might have been, which set the planet spinning about it’s axis, causing our daily cycle of dark and light, our tides, the wind, and all the rest, is obviously also indirectly responsible for the conditions which eventually led to the flower’s evolution.

But what I simply can’t condone is that arguments like these are used to promote a set of organized belief responsible for vast megalomania, immorality, destructiveness, and divisiveness. They’re used to manipulate other human beings, who would otherwise stand at least a chance of seeing things for what they truly are, of being herded into auditoriums, made to sing ridiculous songs, give up their hard earned money, and even go off to kill those who disagree with the very argument which has enslaved them!

It’s these types arguments, with all of their associated conclusions and interpretations, their implications and connotations, asinine abbreviations and simplifications, that lead us deeper into depravation, destroying all hope for mankind’s salvation.

But then again- it’s just a flower.

=== JKrishnamurti.org – Daily Quote ===

There is no knowledge of tomorrow

Observation implies no accumulation of knowledge, even though knowledge is obviously necessary at a certain level: knowledge as a doctor, knowledge as a scientist, knowledge of history, of all the things that have been. After all, that is knowledge: information about the things that have been.

There is no knowledge of tomorrow, only conjecture as to what might happen tomorrow, based on your knowledge of what has been. A mind that observes with knowledge is incapable of following swiftly the stream of thought.

It is only by observing without the screen of knowledge that you begin to see the whole structure of your own thinking. And as you observe – which is not to condemn or accept, but simply to watch – you will find that thought comes to an end.

Casually to observe an occasional thought leads nowhere, but if you observe the process of thinking and do not become an observer apart from the observed – if you see the whole movement of thought without accepting or condemning it – then that very observation puts an end immediately to thought, and therefore the mind is compassionate, it is in a state of constant mutation.

The Collected Works, Vol. XIII – 299

=== Thoughts ===

It’s a terribly difficult thing- perhaps the most difficult thing- to simply observe thought, without acceptance or condemnation, without evaluation.

But putting aside the entire structure of “should” and “should not”, which we’ve been conditioned to accept without hesitation, is absolutely necessary if we’re to elude our egomania and step out of the opressive shadow of the self.

=== JKrishnamurti.org – Daily Quote ===

Can the mind observe without the symbol?

Words have condemnatory or appreciative meanings. As long as my mind is caught in words, either I condemn or accept. And is it possible for the mind not to accept or deny, but observe without the word and the symbol interfering with it?

The Collected Works, Vol. XII – 6

=== Thoughts ===

It’s only from a position of complete total silence that we can ever hope to perceive anything of actuality.

With thought and words come prejudices, evaluations, interpretations, and misunderstandings.

The enlightened mind cannot come into being without complete and total silence.

=== JKrishnamurti.org – Daily Quote ===

Can one function without ambition?

Can one live in this world without ambition, without the image of pleasure which thought has created? Can one function technologically, outwardly, without this poison of ambition?

It can be done, but it is possible only when we understand the origin of thinking and understand actually, factually, the unreality of the division between the observer and the observed.

Then we can proceed, because then virtue has a totally different meaning. It is not the moral virtue of an ugly, corrupt society, but virtue which is order.

Virtue, like humility, is not something to be cultivated by thought. Thought is not virtuous; it is bourgeois, petty, and thought cannot possibly understand either love or virtue or humility.

The Collected Works, Vol. XVI – 170

=== Thoughts ===

As we discussed yesterday, the greatest problem humanity faces is our tendency to divide ourselves from our surroundings, from other people, and from the environment at large, with the illogical, irrational, and false construction of the “self”. Dialetic thought- “light” vs. “dark”, “hate” vs. “love”, and all the rest, are the inevitable result of such a division- of “self” vs. “other”.

And in dialectical thought- with a manichean outlook on the world- how could we ever hope to understand that which actually exists “reality”, “God”, or “truth”- or whatever else you want to call it?

As long as the division remains between “self” and “other”, or as Krishnamurti puts it- “the observer” and “the observed”- we’re stuck in a repetitive, endless cycle of suffering- known to the Buddhists as Samsara.

The good news is that there IS a solution to our dilema, a simple solution, though it is quite difficult to achieve- considering we’ve been brainwashed for 20, 30, 50, or however many years we’ve been on this planet: to completely give up our attachment to the “self”.

To erase self-importance, to cease dividing between the false construct of “ourselves” and “others”, or to wipe out the “I”.

Have you ever looked into the origin of the symbol of the Christian Cross?

You might be surprised to find out it’s true meaning…