Bright Light. Big Questions. (split from bobby & irene)

[RitalinKid]

Bobby and Irene, there's lots of validity for both your ideas. You do need some level of discomfort in your life for whatever reason (mine was internal), but you also need the luxuries of time, experience, and security to read, reflect and think.

Irene, you really nailed it on the head for me. After years of adjusting my conservative religious views to suit scientific data and common sense, I finally realized that I was supplying band aid after band aid for my faith and what I'd been taught. Since then, my ideas, my paradigms have really been changing, developing, which feels good, but I've also found myself feeling like I'm a little on the outside around family and coworkers. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

 

[sanyuja]

I was thinking, it seems there's a strange combination of contentment and misery you've got to have in order for any of this to get a foothold. on one hand, if you try to explain zen to someone who is homeless and starving, he'll be too distracted with all his problems to listen. on the other hand, if you try to explain it to someone who is wealthy and has a lot of ambition, religiously or whatever, you'll inevitably hit a communication barrier. it's like you have to be content enough with life to put all your energy into it, but miserable enough so that you have nothing to lose.

Never thought of this before. I read your post, sat back and thought about it. Its so so true!

 

[Crystal]

basically oneness is this ... for one, it's not an experience or any kind of enlightenment you might think you've acquired. we're saying none of that is important. the reason there isn't oneness in our lives is because of the self, which is a kind of brain damage that occurs when thought separates psychologically from the rest of the world. think of it like this, all thought is just a chemical reaction to experience. when a car veers into your lane, thought reacts by telling you to get out of the way. it's simple intelligence, and as long is it stays like that, everything is hunky dory. however, when thought tries thinking on itself, or, if you want, when the reaction reacts to itself, it creates the illusion that it's the stimulus, the experience, the cause, which is why it separates what it experiences inwardly from what it experiences outwardly. it becomes this arbitrary center. can you see how that poses a problem? all that energy is wasted while thought is chasing its tail. now when a cars veers into your lane, thought reacts first by perceiving it to be a threat, then by blaming it on the other person, and finally by sustaining that feeling of conflict long after the "threat" has passed. the problem is that you observe it as your experience, but you don't exist. consciousness does not exist within you, you exist within it. so what krishnamurti is saying is that, while physically we are individual, psychologically we are not. the observer is the observed.

Been crazily busy these days, so I haven't thought about it carefully enough. In the thread---Interview with God, I got the impression that ONENESS was meant to refer to the THE WHOLE, I mean, everything, him, her, you and me, whatever, that should be considered into ONE, into one unite as in one universe, oneness. But finally realized that, you actually didnot mean that. and also your definition of compassion seemed to be very different from that one kind of human feelings, which led me to nowhere.

Really thank you for the explanation in this post, bobby. It helped to clarify a lot as if I came nearer and nearer to something I have been seeking for but something that is still vague. I thought I was coming to see your point. "Thought's chasing its tail." hmmm.

But, if not thoughts, then what would we have been left with?!

Also, I had a little trouble with this consciousness does not exist within you, you exist within it . So, 'conscious' here doesn't mean thoughts, right? So, does it mean being awareness??? so that I could say, awareness does not exsit within me, but I exsit within awareness??? (Very sorry, if my question sounded to be somewhat ignorant to you guys.)

However, as Mr. Burns explained, thought has a tendency to chase its own tail, especially where fear is concerned. So my friend stopped eating all Mexican food and all seafood, hesitated to eat at any restaurant in Small City, and since he was wearing a blue shirt on that day, stopped wearing that blue shirt. That's what thought does with conditioning, how it creates fear, perpetuates fear, and keeps us within in "known."

That is absolutely more easier for me to understand how fear is generated. You wiped off the dust from the glass wall built by the thoughts.

Very appreciate!

 

[Irene Wilde]

Been crazily busy these days, so I haven't thought about it carefully enough. In the thread---Interview with God, I got the impression that ONENESS was meant to refer to the THE WHOLE, I mean, everything, him, her, you and me, whatever, that should be considered into ONE, into one unite as in one universe, oneness. But finally realized that, you actually didnot mean that. and also your definition of compassion seemed to be very different from that one kind of human feelings, which led me to nowhere.

Oneness does refer to the whole. Try this: think of the universe as a human body. In the human body, all the cells work together to make the whole thing run, they are all part of the one. But when you try to compare us humans to our cell equivalents, we aren't all working together as part of the one because we've built up walls of "self" between us and our fellow cells and they've all done the same. We have walls of fear, blame, desire, pleasure -- all those things we tell ourselves are our "wants and needs" -- competition, "success". We've built walls upon the walls until we've threatened the continued existence of our own planet, and until we've all become small fearful little islands of self. With "cells" that work like that, it's amazing our universal "body" is still functioning. To heal the body, each cell needs to break down the barriers of self, and become part of the universal body. (Can I add that this universal body doesn't mean God, doesn't mean Nirvana. As Mr. Burns said, we are not talking "enlightenment" here. There's no club to join, no routine to follow, no purchase required.)

That's too many words for this early in the morning.

 

[novella]

Mind if I jump in here? I’ve been reading along with this thread and feel that there are innate contradictions in the whole idea of oneness and how humans supposedly experience it.

It strikes me as an ‘intelligent design’ argument, that the underlying assumption is that there is an unseen wholeness in all life that ‘skeptical’ rationalists are not tapped into, and therefore they are unenlightened and incapable of. . .—what, some sort of inner peace?.

Do you think believing in this oneness makes anybody a better person? In other words, why is it valuable to believe in oneness?

Are those who question this belief in oneness, who think that “oneness” is a religious concept with no correlation to observable reality, living poorer lives?

You seem to relate this idea of Oneness with goodness, as if there is goodness in all things except rational thought and it can’t be experienced until you step outside rationality. Though you might deny value judgments as part of this belief system, it’s clear that this goal of understanding oneness is highly valued. Why is that?

Does the bee who does his little part in the overall operation of the hive have some kind of inner tranquility because he intuitively understands his oneness with the other bees? At what point does human intelligence separate the human from the oneness and block that understanding? Are all things except humans capable of being part of this oneness? Are apes who battle each other and steal each other’s food and mates part of the oneness too, or are they too rational and selfish? Where is the real line between man and beast? Without the intellect to conceive of oneness, can it be understood? Do you think oneness exists outside the human concept of it?

It seems primitive to devalue rationality and intellect in favor of some vague, religious concept of spirit in nature, particularly when it’s clearly a human concept. It has a lot in common with pantheisms such as aboriginal and American Indian systems of belief. I don’t see a negative effect of such religions, unless they completely devalue rationality.

I realize this post might not be that much fun for anyone. Thinking can be a pain in the ass sometimes.

 

[Irene Wilde]

as for eastwood's character in high plains drifter, I'm more inclined to think he was a conservative vigilante, because he treats indecent people the way they should be treated from his perspective. there's no clearly defined good or evil in the film, which is why I think it was so successful. the characters are more three-dimensional than in most westerns.

A funny thing -- Prior to watching the Eastwood film, I had gone on a sort of James Bond film festival, so it occurred to me that both Bond and The Man with No Name are both sort of really psychotic killers that people look up to -- I could picture them both in their basements acting out Robert DeNiro's famous scene in "Taxi Driver" ("You talkin' to me?"), yet still I enjoy these films. I try to content myself with the notion that I enjoy them more for the scenery provided by Mssrs. Eastwood and Connery than anything else, but still...it's a little weird when you think about it.

 

[novella]

Eastwood characters have a hint of supernatural powers and superior moral insight (in HPD, Pale Rider, Unforgiven, Dirty Harry), whereas Bond is just a functionary for The Man.

Leone made Eastwood a godlike figure just by using that cool whistle sound whenever he appeared.

 

[Irene Wilde]

Eastwood characters have a hint of supernatural powers and superior moral insight (in HPD, Pale Rider, Unforgiven, Dirty Harry), whereas Bond is just a functionary for The Man.

Leone made Eastwood a godlike figure just by using that cool whistle sound whenever he appeared.

I think Dirty Harry, as a San Francisco cop, was also a tool of The Man. The cool whistle sound was from "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly." Still one of the most effective pieces of film music ever created.

And all of this is just serving to take my mind of the overwhelming sense of "Aryan Superiority" espoused in "The Incredibles" (some people -- especially blonde-haired, blue-eyed males -- are just more "super" than others and therefore should have carte blanche in their activities, including putting someone in the hospital in a fit of violent temper) -- that thing just gives me the creeps, but my daughter loves "Violet" so what's a Mom to do?

 

[novella]

I think Dirty Harry, as a San Francisco cop, was also a tool of The Man.

I thought he was a cowboy in cops clothing . . .

The cool whistle sound was from "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly." Still one of the most effective pieces of film music ever created.

I know. Wonder if they make a ringtone of that whistle . . .

 

[Irene Wilde]

Mind if I jump in here? I’ve been reading along with this thread and feel that there are innate contradictions in the whole idea of oneness and how humans supposedly experience it.

It strikes me as an ‘intelligent design’ argument, that the underlying assumption is that there is an unseen wholeness in all life that ‘skeptical’ rationalists are not tapped into, and therefore they are unenlightened and incapable of. . .—what, some sort of inner peace?.

No underlying assumptions. No judgements. No enlightenment. Just a discussion.

Do you think believing in this oneness makes anybody a better person? In other words, why is it valuable to believe in oneness?

No. If your life is working for you, or someone else's life is working for them. That's great. We aren't talking about "good," "bad" or "better." We are talking about thought, the process of thought, and how that can affect people.

Are those who question this belief in oneness, who think that “oneness” is a religious concept with no correlation to observable reality, living poorer lives?

That's a question for each individual to ask and answer for themselves. I'm not offering "answers." I don't Mr. Burns is offering "answers." We are just having a conservation.

You seem to relate this idea of Oneness with goodness, as if there is goodness in all things except rational thought and it can’t be experienced until you step outside rationality. Though you might deny value judgments as part of this belief system, it’s clear that this goal of understanding oneness is highly valued. Why is that?

"Goodness" is a value, what an individual believes to be "goodness" is based on a belief system. We aren't talking about "beliefs" or "goodness." I'm sorry you think we are, but really it is conversation about how the human mind works -- which may involve psychological elements, manifestations of "pleasure" and "pain" but not values.

Does the bee who does his little part in the overall operation of the hive have some kind of inner tranquility because he intuitively understands his oneness with the other bees? At what point does human intelligence separate the human from the oneness and block that understanding? Are all things except humans capable of being part of this oneness? Are apes who battle each other and steal each other’s food and mates part of the oneness too, or are they too rational and selfish? Where is the real line between man and beast? Without the intellect to conceive of oneness, can it be understood? Do you think oneness exists outside the human concept of it?

Perhaps my analogy wasn't a clear one, or maybe we are speaking at cross purposes. I wasn't talking about "suppressing the individual for the good of the community." Enough of that goes on without me. Again, oneness isn't "enlightment." As I think I explained earlier, I am struggling to find the vocabulary for the ideas I want to express, because too much of our language has such assigned connotative meanings that using a phrase in even a slightly different context isn't possible because the mere use of it is going to render it inaccurate. Our language is "loaded" and therefore, for my purposes, inadequate. Perhaps Mr. Burns can provide further assistance.

It seems primitive to devalue rationality and intellect in favor of some vague, religious concept of spirit in nature, particularly when it’s clearly a human concept. It has a lot in common with pantheisms such as aboriginal and American Indian systems of belief. I don’t see a negative effect of such religions, unless they completely devalue rationality.

Do you think we are devaluing intellect? Really, really, we aren't. Nor are we devaluing rationality. I've not read either Mr. Burns or myself saying anything about gathering around campfires, dispensing with clothes, climb back into the trees and pick lice off each other (though that could have a certain entertainment value). What I am saying is that when "intellect" becomes static and stale, and when "rationality" becomes "rationalization" that there's a problem, for me, and our discussion is about keeping intellect from becoming dull, static, and lifeless.

I realize this post might not be that much fun for anyone. Thinking can be a pain in the ass sometimes.

You've contributed to the dialogue, which is not a pain in the ass at all. I've given you my response, others may have theirs. I'm not asking you or anyone else to agree me or with Mr. Burns or with each other. I returned to this forum, specifically at the request of Mr. Burns, simply to have this conversation because this is where he wanted to have it. The conversation isn't about having "answers." It's about our own experiences in our own lives. In my case, just about anybody has done a better job than I have at living, so anyone content with their own life is one up on me. I'm not an expert, I'm not a devout believer in anything. I'm a few weeks past a nervous breakdown and just learning to crawl again.

 

[novella]

I'm not asking you or anyone else to agree me or with Mr. Burns or with each other. I returned to this forum, specifically at the request of Mr. Burns, simply to have this conversation because this is where he wanted to have it. . . . In my case, just about anybody has done a better job than I have at living, so anyone content with their own life is one up on me. I'm not an expert, I'm not a devout believer in anything. I'm a few weeks past a nervous breakdown and just learning to crawl again.

I'm terribly sorry to hear this, Irene. It really is nice to see you back here. I hope your crisis has passed.

What I'm trying to get at is not an "answer" to everything, but clarification of the basic idea, the value and function and location of the thing this discussion is about. It seems that only analogies can be used to explain this thing, which, to me, means that it's not really explaining the thing itself. It seems to be mostly defined by what it is not.

 

[Irene Wilde]

At this point in time my end of the conversation has tried to focus on the process of thinking. That's where I am right now. It's what I'm calling, and everyone please excuse the R-rated language -- I know what a bugaboo that is to folks here, the "Shut the **** Up Approach." It's ties directly into Krishnamurti's discussions in "Freedom from the Known" regarding conditioning, desire, and fear. There's 42 years worth of these things rolling around in my head -- and they all contributed to the mechanism known here as "Irene Wilde" malfunctioning and needing a good six weeks' worth of lie down.

From this conversation people began talking about oneness (which is a dangerous conversation to have when you are talking with people who have their own interpretations about what this is -- which I think why Mr. Burns and I have stuck with definitions of what it isn't). I, for one, am being especially careful (or trying to be) when discussing this. I don't want to ignore people's questions. I don't want to exclude anyone who wants to constructively participate. However, use of that particular phrase can lead people into reading meanings into it that I don't intend for them to have. Mr. Burns tried, I think, to explain this was a term for an idea he was having difficulty expressing, a term of convenience mroe than direct meaning. Many people have fallen into the trap of hearing words like that and thinking "This person has the knowledge I want. I'll simply following their step-by-step instructions and I'll have that knowledge, too." I don't want people falling into that trap in the course of this discussion. I would rather end it than have that happen.

If there is a philosophy being espoused, if there is an idea I am asking people to consider, it is to think for themselves, but to truly think, not recall from memory what others have told them to think, or what fear is telling them to think. A process, again for want of a better phrase, I'll call "clear thinking" -- thinking without programming, without conditioning, and without fear.

Yeah...I think that's my end of this conversation to date, along with sidebars on music, film, and other shared interests between myself and Mr. Burns. And I don't ask you to agree or disagree with us on those subjects either.

 

[Irene Wilde]

A passage from "Freedom from the Known" to provide clarification:

"Man has throughout the ages been seeking something beyond himself, beyond material welfare -- something we call truth or God or reality, a timeless state -- something that cannot be disturbed by circumstances, by thought or by human corruption.

"Man has always asked the question: what is it all about? Has life any meaning at all? He sees the enormous confusion of life, the brutalities, the revoltes, the wars, the endless divisions of religion, ideology, and nationality, and with a sense of deep abiding frustration he asks, what is one to do, what is this thing we call living, is there anything beyond it?

"And not finding this nameless thing of a thousand names which he has always sought, he has cultivated faith -- faith in a saviour or an ideal -- and faith invariably breeds violence."

So there, I guess, is your definition: "A nameless thing of a thousand names."

 

[Crystal]

A passage from "Freedom from the Known" to provide clarification:


"Man has always asked the question: what is it all about? Has life any meaning at all? He sees the enormous confusion of life, the brutalities, the revoltes, the wars, the endless divisions of religion, ideology, and nationality, and with a sense of deep abiding frustration he asks, what is one to do, what is this thing we call living, is there anything beyond it?

Did he share some of his wisdom, like, solution to those quests? Did he indicate that one just had to accept all those around him/her, but never question?

I think the idea here seems to point out that thought can bring you nothing but limitation, so there seemed to be only one option left--DO NOT THINK!/or STOP THINKING. Isn't that weird?? Okay, if toughts doesn't do any good to people, but '"conditioning", where would it be leading to? Only to achieve one's own awarenss?? Isn't that too matephysical??

(hey...it make sense. see? my thoughts ask me to find a solution, to question its destination and future? isn't it chasing its tail? Uh-oh. Bang!)
-----------
Irene, I am so sorry to hear that you have undergone some hard time. I don't know whatelse to say... Please take good care of yourself. I am wishing you to be able to live happily. I mean, take the courage. (Hope you don't mind. I don't mean to make it public.)

 

[RitalinKid]

I believe everyone has their own way. It makes sense that some people are content with whatever life hands them while others have a yearning inside them for push the limits of what they understand, of what they've known. Neither group is superior or inferior. Everyone seeks some form of contentment, and toward that end, I'm drawn for some reason to learning and understanding human behavior and how it has created what currently surrounds us. I'm not looking for anything mystical or spiritual. Part of understanding humanity is to look inside, while the other is to look at the history, biology and culture of our species. I feel the need to understand myself and humanity, and I'll learn whatever is there to learn. I don't feel the need to prove anything, only discover.

 

[novella]

RitKid, I must tell you that I really like your posts. In fact, your post this morning on the Memory of Running thread was really touching, and I'm sad that I have not read that book yet and can't participate.

 

[novella]

A passage from "Freedom from the Known" to provide clarification:

"Man has throughout the ages been seeking something beyond himself, beyond material welfare -- something we call truth or God or reality, a timeless state -- something that cannot be disturbed by circumstances, by thought or by human corruption.

"Man has always asked the question: what is it all about? Has life any meaning at all? He sees the enormous confusion of life, the brutalities, the revoltes, the wars, the endless divisions of religion, ideology, and nationality, and with a sense of deep abiding frustration he asks, what is one to do, what is this thing we call living, is there anything beyond it?

"And not finding this nameless thing of a thousand names which he has always sought, he has cultivated faith -- faith in a saviour or an ideal -- and faith invariably breeds violence."

So there, I guess, is your definition: "A nameless thing of a thousand names."

This primary text itself talks only about what "the thing" is not, so I don't think it's a condition of the dialogue you and bb are having, but a condition of the concept. To define it would be to form a concrete idea of what it is, which seems to be not only undesirable but also impossible. Hence the analogies and the negative formulations.

But obviously I am missing the big picture here. This idea is something of value to both of you, an idea that you feel is worth looking into. I think that my questions are intrusive. If two people were talking about their idea of heaven and a third comes along and says, yes, but what leads you to believe that heaven even exists?, the third person is damaging their dialogue by damaging their imagined, shared landscape, which is not a nice thing to do.

 

[Irene Wilde]

A slight interjection here. Kids, a nervous breakdown is a thing that happened to me. I'm neither proud nor ashamed of it. Some of you know I've written about some of the most private episodes of my life -- so you know that I'm not uncomfortable discussing "private" things. If I had some reason for keeping it secret I would, but it's been just another thing that's happened.

Thanks for the well wishes, both public and private, but really it's no different than saying I slipped in the bath tub or bumped my head.

Crystal Dear -- how I have missed you! -- your questions aren't as simple as they seem, nor are the responses. I'll start with saying this, and then try to give you a more complete response later. Krishnamurti's style was not to give answers -- it was to pose questions and discuss them, then let the reader or listener go find their own answers. The man didn't want to create a following; he didn't want to do other people's thinking for them.

Yes, he had opinions and those he shares in books like "Freedom from the Known" -- and there he explains the difference between "thinking" and "thought" which is where your confusion may lie. "Thinking" is dynamic, living, original. "Thought" is static, it is the past reimposing itself on the present. I'll try to give you a clearer explanation later when I'm not rushed for time.

I hope you stay with our conversation and keep asking questions. It's so nice to hear from you again!

 

[bobbyburns]

you're not intruding, novella. take a step back. let's just talk. this has become way too complex. think of it this way, at the most fundamental level everything that exists--subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, matter--is composed of energy. I'll clarify, that's not belief or mysticism, that's a fact. at the very core of the universe is unity. it's not god or pantheism, it's not intelligent design, it's none of that. energy sustains itself. so what zen is saying is this ... right now all we know is conflict. we're forcing thought to battle experience. as long as this continues, violence and misery won't go away. there's no action we can take to end either one. it's only through the awareness of the problem that change can occur. then thought sees there's nothing to fight against.

 

[bobbyburns]

it is like a finger pointing away to the moon. focus on the finger and you will miss all that heavenly glory.

To define it would be to form a concrete idea of what it is, which seems to be not only undesirable but also impossible. Hence the analogies and the negative formulations.