“So, what’s with the comb-over?”

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.

Krishnamurti Study Group

  Krishnamurti Study Group Saturday, November 15, 2014     Five people attended the session which would potentially bring us to the end of the book Freedom From the Known.  The last part of Chapter 16 asks a number of profound questions with which K is challenging us to find the “passion” to live fully and to come upon the reality of truth, love, beauty, God, and bliss.   This needs energy, so we must see how we are wasting energy in our lives and find the way to make our minds “new”.  At the same time we cannot “invite” reality or seek after it in any way. The challenges posed awakened a pointed group inquiry into a number of these issues;  the dialogue was found to be “powerful” by the participants.   We did complete the reading of the text and some appreciation was expressed that we had done so.  Next session we will take stock of where we have come, what we now understand to be the essence of K’s teaching and how we have integrated it into our lives.  What, if anything, is still missing?  Do we have the “perfume” in ourselves, and If not then what is the barrier?

“Sausage and Chips”

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!”    

A Recap of recent Eckhart Tolle Meetup Events at Swanwick

Eckhart Tolle Meet-up – The Ripple and the Ocean For the November get-together at Swanwick, we watched a recent talk by Eckhart where he explored the transition from surface knowledge to ‘depth knowledge’. Like Krishnamurti, he talked about a deeper realization of who we are. He proposed that this realization can be inclusive of both relative and absolute being-ness. There were 9 people who attended this screening – and each shared a few thoughts about their own experiences and challenges with allowing inner awareness to surface that is rooted in a deeper sense of being. It was a lovely afternoon and a few of us ate figs that had fallen from a tree on the grounds – savouring their almost ripe aliveness which took one of our members right back to his childhood on another continent.   October Meetup: Eckhart Tolle Interview with Lothar Schäfer Eckhart introduced a very intriguing scientist, Lothar Schäfer, who’s research in quantum physics uncovered many of the same deeper truths that Eckhart had experienced in his awakening of consciousness. This was an engaging discussion which at times we found stretched our thinking…. A few nuggets: • Scientific evidence is showing researchers that there is an unmanifested dimension of the universe that science and the human mind will never perceive. Perhaps Krishnamurti would have likened this to the ultimate ‘freedom from the known’! • Quantum physics is revealing that the basis of the universe is not really centred around form or physicality (materialism) but rather potentiality and the unmanifest are at the heart of existence…. • Eckhart and Lothar considered whether there is intention fuelling the unfoldment of our universe, as consciousness evolves itself through knowing itself more completely (e.g. through deepening human awareness/presence) – or, whether this universe is simply an accidental ‘soup’ or convergence of random circumstances and conditions…. The four people who attended the event had many ‘take-away’ insights and enjoyed an animated conversation about inter-connectedness, universal consciousness/intelligence and human evolution. Ralph tells me some of the themes above could almost have been a continuation of intriguing dialogues between Krishnamurti and David Bohm (recorded in “The Ending of Time” in the KECC library).

Meditation: a Shift in Perception

  These are the reflections on What is meditation? presented by a member of the Vancouver Krishnamurti Group at a recent session:   Meditation is a way to discover the basic flaw in our perception that the World ‘out there’ is different form the World that I perceive. There is no World ‘out there’, outside of my being conscious of it. The idea that objects exist independently of those who perceive them, is wrong. When K talks about the observer and the observed, he directly points to the solution of this riddle. Because if I condition myself to think that: “There’s an ugly World out there, but thank goodness I am here”, I can now criticize that World out there, because I must be different from that. I am the good guy and out there is the bad guy. This, to me, is the fundamentally wrong position to take, because I have to come to realize that whatever I perceive, whatever enters my consciousness, including the entire Universe, all that can be created in the mind, is the content of the consciousness of all of us. And this content contains the entire Universe and the entire World. It does not exist outside of us, yet we react to this content with a position of: “I like this”, or “I dislike that”, as we are caught up in the polarity of either, or, good, bad, dark, and light and this polar thinking is part of our identity. Meditation, as Krishnamurti presents it, and as I believe it is meant to be, is a way to come to the discovery of this basic flaw in our way of perceiving the World. I have never meditated in the tradition sense, but I have with my eyes open, as I am a painter. A musician may have a way of doing it to music. Different people have a different constitution, through which they can experiment and discover the truth of the statement above, even if it sounds preposterous. I discovered this by seeing how my perception changes with the state of my being. This perception can be so different when there is no reactor, or perceiver to what is observed, but through being in the observing, thinking, seeing, and hearing. It’s not that I am hearing something in particular, because as soon as I do, I enter it immediately with the polar mind: “I like it”, “I don’t like it”. And there is nothing wrong with this, as long as I don’t identify with either of these polarity states, but remain aware of these polar appearances as simply being the revelations of my own psyche, of my own nature. When the observer stops, however, and I am only observing, the picture changes, because I am no longer observing just fragments of the spectacle. For instance, if one looks at a landscape and he likes trees, the first thing in his view will be the trees, then the houses in between the trees. As observation becomes more and more like meditation, the objects lose their presence, and you don’t see the landscape in fragments, but you now see the whole totality of the separate parts. A movement can be observed that is not the movement of the mind, it is the movement of ‘what is’. And this movement of ‘what is’ is not describable as the movement of the objects, because it seems to just unfold in movement rather than is being perceived by the perceiver. You have to be in your ‘being’ to be able to see the movement of reality. Once you go into meditation and begin to experiment with the idea that there is nothing ‘out there’, but that everything is in the mind, you begin to discover that the observer IS the observed. It’s a meditative process to come to actually connect with the ‘real’ World, as opposed to the personal view World.                                                                                Steve Salay

What does Quantum Theory tell us about Free Will?

  When K talks about ‘choiceless awareness’ without the observer, it seems to imply the existence of an observer who chooses.  But is there really choice at all?   What Does Quantum Theory Tell us About Free Will? by Chris Fields, November 1, 2014 One often hears that quantum theory saves free will from classical Newtonian or even Darwinian determinism. Investigating such claims, however, quickly gets complicated. Pure “unitary” or “minimal” quantum theory postulates fully deterministic dynamics, but only probabilistic outcomes for observations. Some interpretations of quantum theory – mostly traceable to John von Neumann, inventor of today’s most popular computer architecture – modify pure quantum theory by assuming that observations disrupt the otherwise-deterministic dynamics in a non-deterministic way. Some physicists, whether they agree with von Neumann about observations changing the dynamics or not, insist that observers “choose” what to observe, so all “observations” require free will. Others picture a universe in everything, including observations, “just happens” while still others insist that, in an important sense, nothing happens. So what’s the right answer? Does quantum theory save free will or not? In 2006, John Conway and Simon Kochen published a “free will theorem” that showed, subject to assumptions from special relativity and pure quantum theory, that if the actions of an observer are not determined by the events in her past, then the behavior of whatever she’s observing cannot be determined by the events in its past either. They are perfectly up-front about what this means: if anyone anywhere has free will, then so do elementary particles, or as Conway and Kochen put it, “fundamental particles are continually making their own decisions .” The Conway-Kochen theorem saves free will, but it’s clearly a double-edged sword. If everything has free will, then free will isn’t special – having free will is no big deal. So let’s look a little closer at what the theorem means. In special relativity, the “past” of something includes all events that could affect that something with a causal influence traveling no faster than light. The “past” of an observer is, therefore, everything that the observer could obtain any information about, even in principle. But this too is a double-edged sword, since it means that an observer never knows what’s happening now. Light travels 186,000 miles per second, so can get from anywhere on Earth to you in half the time it takes you to become conscious of something happening, but your consciousness is still grasping what just happened, not what’s happening now. Do we loose any free will due to what’s happening now? Does an electron? Quantum theory advises caution here. In pure quantum theory, at any rate, the physical state of the entire universe evolves as one. In pure quantum theory, everything is entangled, and entanglement is not causality, it’s connectedness. This connectedness has nothing to do with the speed of light: both you and the electron are connected with the whole rest of the universe now. What you’re doing, and what the electron is doing – in fact, what every individual thing is doing – is just what the whole universe is doing, right now. The Conway-Kochen theorem limits the deterministic effects of your individual past, but if everything is connected, your individual past doesn’t matter. What matters is the past of the whole universe, and the past of the whole universe includes everything. So the Conway-Kochen theorem is no protection: if everything is connected, you don’t have free will after all. Nothing has free will. But wait a minute. Maybe no individual thing has free will, but nothing says the whole universe can’t have free will. That works with both the Conway-Kochen theorem and the idea of universal connectedness. Maybe the right answer is not that every thing has free will, or that no thing has free will, but rather that everything – the whole totally-connected universe – has free will. Now that, you might say, is not what we were after. The universe could have free will back in the old, deterministic Newtonian world! It’s individual free will that counts. The Conway-Kochen theorem saved it, but then universal connectedness took it away. What goes? What happened to the idea that quantum theory is better than classical determinism? Let’s back up any try again. In pure quantum theory, the universe evolves as one. The “as one” here is serious: if you take away even one electron, things are different. Being part of a totally-connected universe doesn’t mean that what you do is determined by this part or that part, it only means that what you do is determined by what the whole universe is doing. So the situation is actually better than the Conway-Kochen theorem; it’s not just that your past does not determine your future, no part of the past, even one much larger than just yours, determines your future. Only the entire past of the whole universe determines your future, and neither you nor any other observer can observe the entire past, even in principle. So no one, even if they could look at the whole rest of the universe, can predict your future. This is, moreover, not true just of you, but also of electrons. No observer, even if they can look at the whole rest of the universe, can predict the behavior of just one electron. Is a future that no observer, no matter how large or powerful, can predict as good as free will? Is it even distinguishable from free will? If even the behavior of electrons is unpredictable in principle, do these questions even matter?    

Recent Weekend Events at the Centre

    Krishnamurti Study Group Saturday, November 1, 2014     Nine participants showed up for this ongoing exploration of the book Freedom From the Known by J. Krishnamurti.   We began to read half way through the last chapter of the book but only progressed a couple of paragraphs because there was immediately a great deal of earnest discussion about the subject matter, which was mainly concerned with how we create friction and therefore a loss of energy.  K says that great energy is needed in order to inquire deeply. This statement was questioned and explored, and the fact of resistance to “what is” was looked at.  It was expressed that it seems essential to really see the root of this resistance, with the resulting conflict and suffering, and the focused inquiry into this issue led to some fresh insight for at least some of the participants.  It was expressed that the session was a “powerful” one. Inquiry Sunday November 2, 2014 For the morning session KECC had invited Keith Baker to give a talk and lead a discussion about his experience of having five cardiac arrests over a short period of time and the powerful “near death experience” that coincided with this event.  There was a great deal of interest in the topic apparently as 28 people were in attendance.   Keith spoke clearly about the profound experience of becoming pure, unlimited awareness and boundless love and realizing that that is what he truly is.  An essential aspect of the experience he described as being the realization that everything is perfect exactly as it is.  The distinction was made between “ideal” and “perfect”:  although something may be far from ideal, there is a way in which it is always perfect.  He then spoke of the importance of seeing through and releasing limiting beliefs and having belief systems that are congruent with one’s purpose. The talk was followed by questions from the group and some interesting discussion of what had been presented.  After the meeting was officially ended, many people lingered to continue talking further with Keith and each other. In the afternoon, nine people stayed for a video of Krishnamurti on the topic of “meditation” and a group dyad and dialogue inquiry into what had been seen and heard.  Krishnamurti’s approach to meditation is quite different from many teachings about the subject and it can be challenging for people to get a concrete sense of exactly what he is pointing to.  One thing that seemed to be understood, at least verbally, by everyone was his emphasis that If there is a “meditator” then meditation is not happening.  Meditation is perceiving what is without the meditator or observer, the thought-constructed “me” that is the result of conditioning and lack of clear seeing of our true nature.  These statements by K provoked some serious investigation into the reality or otherwise of the separate “I” and some relating to what had been said and discussed in the morning session.   There is always in these sessions the opportunity for real insight and transformation and for the awakening of this type of inquiry on an ongoing basis.  

You are the Unknown

  The link below brings to mind K’s classic ‘Freedom from the Known’. Freedom from the known is knowing You are the Unknown. http://youtu.be/R5wZT2E78cY  

K Study Group

Krishnamurti Study Group Saturday, October 25, 2014 Four people gathered at the Swanwick Centre to continue with the ongoing study of the text Freedom From the Known.   We covered the first half of Cbapter 16, which is the last chapter of the book.  The subjects explored by K in this segment are total revolution, the religious mind, and energy.  He asks if the human being can, by seeing the nature of his or her relationship with the world, bring about a different quality of mind which he calls in this case “the religious mind”.   There was some questioning of why he uses the word “religious” when he always seemed to challenge any kind of belief system or organizational approach.  We explored what might be meant by the true meaning of the religious mind and what is involved in opening to that reality.  The issue of wasting energy through conflict was investigated and the nature of the attention or awareness needed to move beyond this habitual and conditioned way of living.   It seemed that all participants felt the dialogue had been penetrating and beneficial, and the value of sharing in this way was appreciated.

What exactly is being Truly “helpful?”

I gave a printed copy of the last blog, “Keep it Clean,” to a friend and she returned it just now with the comment… “This wasn’t really very helpful to ‘me’ at this stage, but thanks anyway.” I contemplated this and the only thing that kept popping up is kind of the other side of what the “Keep it Clean” blog says as regards to not conversing with “another” or always talking to one’s Self. I have found that it makes all the difference in the world if one is reading, watching videos or listening to tapes that “come from Presence” – ie: Krishnamurti, Mooji, Gangaji et al – by remaining as my Self. I will not “get anything” out of the listening if not listening from Presence. In fact it should feel as if one is not getting anything. How can I “get” what I am already being? Is water ever trying to get its wetness? To an intellect, whose job is to conceptually “get” or grasp, this can be most upsetting. To say I don’t get this, or that it’s “over my head” or it isn’t helpful is quite accurate. It is impossible to mentally grasp the pure Being I Am. One cannot think the marvelous sense of Presence, one can only “feel” It by being It. And to see that is to “get” It. Awareness cannot be “used” to help clear up perceived problems. All seeming problems are due to not seeing or “coming from” the Awareness I Am. For as This, no problems exist in the first place. All apparent suffering comes from identifying with the illusory separate self or little struggling ‘me’ that is trying to “get it”, instead of the pure Self I Am. Coming from the I-Principle or as K says, “Choiceless Awareness,” and not from thought, is being Truly helpful. Of course the Advaita police might say, “And to whom is it being truly helpful? Awareness doesn’t need any help and there isn’t two!” And I would have to agree with that, even though it ‘feels’ kind of unhelpful to do so!