This is no way attempting to downplay the obvious wonderful and insightful revelations that appeared to unfold during last weekend’s retreat. And, as I wasn’t in attendance, I am only adding my perspective to the excellent overview given by David. How about a fourth option? Referencing one of K’s favourite quotes: A “Choiceless-Awareness” Inquiry. Or, It could even be called, a pure, nondual Self-inquiry. It may sound similar to the first inquiry that Scott teaches as far as remaining as Awareness without any doing etc. However, abiding as the Self, this inquiry is Awareness “choicelessly” inquiring as to what is true of Itself ALONE. As is sometimes said, if one is Self-consciousness, one cannot simultaneously be self-conscious. If one is abiding as Being, Awareness only, no thoughts arise. Only when one seems or appears to ignore Being, Self (and there is no other!) do thoughts and emotions appear to arise. And further to last weekend’s theme of addictions and desires, this is a question posted during the “Stillness Speaks” forum on the nature of Awareness, which was also hosted by Scott Kiloby, Peter Dziuban and Greg Goode: “Ven: What is your take on desire – both ‘before’ and ‘after’? ‘After’ realization, presumably even if desire arises, it is quickly seen through, since desire implies separation – an ‘I’ wanting to get a separate object, wealth, fame, etc. But then why do some teachers seem to have acted in desire-driven ways? Was their realization incomplete? And ‘before’ realization, should a sadhaka strive to ignore desire/thoughts and focus attention on consciousness, on ‘I am’, as Ramana and Nisargadatta taught?  It seems that one can understand quite readily what is being pointed to, but then one also needs to be/live the understanding; to see that the ‘I’ is illusory. And there seems to be a point at which the ‘I thought’ is permanently destroyed – which perhaps is the difference between a Ramana / Nisargadatta and the teachers referred to above.  Rupert Spira said: “The first true glimpse of this is sometimes known as Enlightenment or Awakening, although in almost all cases the habitual tendencies of the mind and the body reappear and apparently veil this Knowingness again. The subsequent establishment in this understanding, sometimes known as Self-realization, is not a process towards a goal. It is a re-orchestration of the body, mind and world that comes from understanding, rather than going towards it. Enlightenment is instantaneous. Self-Realization takes time. Is continuously coming back to the intellectual understanding enough or does one need to focus attention for as much time as possible on the ‘I am’ and ignore other thoughts?” Peter D. answers: “This point illustrates the “value” of consistently “starting from” or AS, history-less Awareness. This may be a matter of simply silently abiding or resting as Awareness, and it also can be a matter of inquiry as to what is true of history-less Awareness, as we’ll see. As said repeatedly, after all, Awareness is “starting as” Itself exclusively, and there is no other. The answer to the individual questions above will vary, depending on where one’s stance is taken. And again, the only real, true stance is that of Awareness being Itself. Intellectual understanding of Awareness is not necessary to pure Awareness. It implies another who could understand or not understand. The ease of simple, clear Presence to Itself is not a matter of better thinking—it is the absence of thinking. Yet at times, on the apparent level, intellectual understanding seems a useful, necessary step. The very questions imply a secondary, less-than-Awareness-Itself state has occurred, and it really hasn’t. If one starts from the would-be apparent (which Awareness is not doing) it seems as if a dualistic prior state has happened, and which must be let go of, dissolved, risen out of, etc. etc. if one wants to be free or “realized.” There usually appears to be work involved in this, a discipline, a striving, and of course it implies otherness. Starting directly as history-less Awareness (which, admittedly, may seem to require some “seeing” but not too much), it’s a different ballgame. It is entirely a matter of what freely present Awareness is to Itself—no past in which a prior experience occurred, and which now must be let go of, or risen out of, and no need to gain anything. This is light, free, openness—an effortless but gently alive abiding as that which cannot fail to be, as opposed to striving to bring something about. It may take some alertness, especially “at first”—but it’s only a noticing that Awareness Itself never fails—it’s not a matter of having to accomplish. It’s like the difference between coasting down a hill, or struggling to climb it. In the first one, there is no work to do, even though one still is alert. This does not mean to imply that habits and tendencies will instantly cease because they still may continue. Even after the history-less-ness of present Awareness is clear, such things may try to assert themselves. But there is no claiming of them as “my” habit or “my” weakness. Equally, if one is honest, there will be no “going along with them” either—such as an inclination to excessively or unnaturally indulge in alcohol, sex, etc. In other words, sometimes we’ll readily agree Awareness never has experienced the pains of the body, but it’s not always as quickly agreed that Awareness never has experienced the pleasures of the body either! This is not a judgment of these things. There is no one to judge either good or bad. It’s just that as long as these are indulged (or opposed) the attention is on them, and it seems there is an avoiding of Awareness. Yet even at that, Awareness cannot really avoid Its very Presence. In Advaita, these tendencies are called vasanas, supposedly due to karma. In the light of history-less Awareness, the notion of karma, too, would be just a thought. That’s all well and good to see this intellectually, but it doesn’t necessarily leave one free. It seems one has to go “deeper” than mere intellectual muttering of truisms. So, what to “do”? Right here, now, “start” or abide as Awareness Itself. Just rest and be still. Is Awareness making any effort as It silently is being? Now, as this effortless Awareness, ask how much Awareness weighs to Awareness. Of course, don’t answer intellectually with, “It doesn’t weigh anything.” Rather, feel, be, this absence of weight. What is this to Itself? It’s the same as asking, How much does NOW, the Present, weigh? You never will tire of asking this question. The nondual thought-police might come back with an intellectual quip such as, “Who is doing this? There is no other to experience Awareness. To Awareness there is no experience…there is nothing that can be known.” Wouldn’t that in itself be a “knowing”—to know that nothing can be known? And who says it’s another that’s doing this? This lightness that Awareness IS certainly isn’t something that a Ven or Peter or any body can cause to be present. To continue with or AS this lightness…Is this lightness a desire? Is It desiring Its already present Presence? Is It seeking Itself, or trying to get away from a bad habit or some kind of baggage—or is It simply, freely being Itself? How “far” does this exquisite lightness extend—is there an end to it—does it go only so far? Really try to find an end. Can this delicious ease be shut off, or restrain Itself from Itself? Being without a border, is It containable? Is it possible for this lightness to EVER escape Its very Presence? Is there an end to how “deeply” this delicious lightness can “go” within Itself (even though there’s no distance to go!). How deep is “infinitely, endlessly deep”? This never feels like “work”—unless there’s a mistaken assumption of having to overcome something. On the other hand, when done for Its own sake, It is joyous and exciting—and one doesn’t want to stop. There simply is nothing else that is more “enjoyable” or “feels better” than THIS, because actually there is only This! The point is, this utterly free openness, this delicious, gently alive softness is the “natural state” of Life, Awareness. It just naturally, normally, inherently “feels good” to be Itself. There’s no feeling of restriction, pressure, or opposition (or attraction) Here because THIS is “without a second.” It would require a second for there to be restriction, opposition or attraction. As there is only this ONE, there honestly, truly is nothing else to be overcome. So to not “work this way” would be to try to oppose the way Life Itself, Awareness Itself is already present functioning and operating (being). And Awareness Itself really cannot even do that. In other words, if at one “time” a habit or tendency seemed to “feel better” “more delicious” or was pursued instead of being One’s Self–this richer Self-interest will out-delicious, outlast the seeming habit or tendency. One’s Self just inherently “feels” better, easier, simpler. So this Self-fascination (which Awareness has no choice but to be!) means that what seem to be habits, tendencies, desires will stop dinging, stop arising—because they have no history, no one to cling to, no place from which to come. This Self-Deliciousness inherently feels so much better and easier (if one is going to contrast), that the “other” eventually dissolves into its native state of never having begun—there being only Self Itself.”

I was surfing the website of K’s quotes and landed on 14 that had to do with belief. Here is one of them… The screen of belief… “You believe in God, and another does not believe in God, so your beliefs separate you from each other. Belief throughout the world is organized as Hinduism, Buddhism, or Christianity, and so it divides man from man. We are confused, and we think that through belief we shall clear the confusion; that is, belief is superimposed on the confusion, and we hope that confusion will thereby be cleared away. But belief is merely an escape from the fact of confusion; it does not help us to face and to understand the fact but to run away from the confusion in which we are. To understand the confusion, belief is not necessary, and belief only acts as a screen between ourselves and our problems. So, religion, which is organized belief, becomes a means of escape from what is, from the fact of confusion. The man who believes in God, the man who believes in the hereafter, or who has any other form of belief, is escaping from the fact of what he is.”   I “believe” K would have gotten on famously with George Carlin. George had a very low opinion of all religion and frequently used some of its absurdities in his stand-up routines. Here is an excerpt from “Brain Droppings” to show what I mean… “Sun God” “I’ve begun worshipping the sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the sun. It’s there for me everyday. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There’s no mystery, no one asks for money, I don’t have to dress up, and there’s no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to “God” are all answered at about the same 50 percent rate.” Beliefs can be tricky. Like, in the “story lines,” the time when four successful businessmen traveled together to Germany to attend the world construction equipment expo. One of the group had a pet saying while in the pub… “You have to believe in something. I believe I’ll have another drink.” Anyway, just for fun, we had baseball caps made up with this saying embroidered on the front, in German. But apparently the cap company miss-translated it and the German folks took it to be a religious saying and thought we must be in some kind of cult. Beliefs can be tricky!

About ten years back when I was hosting a “K” study group in Ontario, one of the new participants, who was clearly unfamiliar with his ‘stuff’, made the statement… “If Krishnamurti is supposed to be so enlightened, then what’s with the comb-over?” After the laughter died down, there was much discussion around the usual expectations in society of how the so-called “holy ones” presented themselves and conducted their affairs (and perhaps that is a poor choice of words given the controversy over alleged goings on between K and Mrs. Besant). I believe my comment at the time was that old Zen saying… “Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water.” In the ‘story lines’ or apparent dream, the “body” may or may not go through seeming psychic shifts as a result of so-called ‘awakening’; as has also been reported in the case of both Jiddu and UG Krishnamurti. Self-inquiry shows that there really is no “person” inside the “body” with any choice as to how it dresses or behaves or what part it appears to play in the dream of daily living. The basic personality or character really doesn’t tend to alter all that much. I lean towards it being compared to some kind of software that has to play itself out as long as there appears to be a “body.” There is not any ‘consciousness’ inside of bodies or things. So, no body can rise in awareness, or ascend to some higher level of Consciousness.  If one digs a little more it is revealed that there isn’t even an actual stand-alone object labeled a “body” OR a “comb” at all! NOT EVEN AS A DREAM OR ILLUSION! The only thing that truly “exists” is Existence being Itself.

It was suggested that I might want to check out the official Krishnamurti site for possible blog content… http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/index.php So today I did just that, and low and behold… “Sausage and Chips!” Here is “K’s” beautiful daily quote… A Problem that Thought Cannot Resolve “The self is a problem that thought cannot resolve. There must be an awareness which is not of thought. To be aware, without condemnation or justification, of the activities of the self – just to be aware – is sufficient. If you are aware in order to find out how to resolve the problem, in order to transform it, in order to produce a result, then it is still within the field of the self, of the ‘me’. So long as we are seeking a result, whether through analysis, through awareness, through constant examination of every thought, we are still within the field of thought, which is within the field of the ‘me’, of the ‘I’, of the ego, or what you will. As long as the activity of the mind exists, surely there can be no love. When there is love, we shall have no social problems.” THEN…”sausage and chips.” What Are You Doing with Your Life? Not sure who posts these quotes but this was the notation directly following the quote. Just as K says if one is attempting to produce a result it is still in the field of “me” or “I”. So, who is going to “do” Life? Life is what I Am. Nobody is “doing” Life. And from Here there is no individual life or “you” at all. All is Life! (This quote comes close to the CIA (Consciousness Is All) perspective that I have been posting for many months now. But, with a seemingly slight difference. Actually it is a HUGE difference. Coming ‘from’ Awareness is All and not from what one is aware of yields a completely different point of view.) Anyway, back to “sausage and chips.” Anyone who has followed some of the Mooji’s Satsangs might remember this statement. Mooji would be reading a letter or e-mail that was clearly written from or as Awareness and then right at the end the writer would insert some kind of personal ‘stuff’, upon which M would say…”Look at that!  This beautiful writing from Truth and then “Sausage and chips!”