u/JellyfishExpress8943

Someone asked : “should we give up all our beliefs?”  

I understand the sentiment.   It's probably coming from the idea that beliefs, or dogma are a source of conflict.  We also see a lot of trouble being caused by harmful or incorrect beliefs.  

In dialogue we say that the identification with a belief is a barrier to honest inquiry - it prevents open communication.  

For example, if I am a Marxist I am under the impression that I have absorbed the understanding of Karl Marx 🤪 - and when I hear a Capitalist speaking I find it difficult to listen to what they say - I feel a form of resistance, they seem to be talking rubbish.

But the word “belief” just refers to a mental state - it refers to our level of confidence in the truth value of a proposition.   And our relationship with propositions or concepts is on a spectrum.   As an illustration lets imagine we are at a bus-stop : 

If we can see that a bus is arriving at the bus-stop, we are directly perceiving a fact - the degree of confidence is so high we don't even use the term belief in this case.
If we take the proposition : "buses are a form of public transport" our level of confidence is such that we would use the term "knowledge" - we say "I know that buses are a form of transport"
However if we say : "the bus will arrive at 6:15pm" then our level of confidence or belief will vary.

The idea that we should not have any beliefs is a form of confusion - it is also itself a belief.  

What is important is the authority of the belief - in other words our relationship with knowledge.

David Hume said that we should proportion our beliefs to the evidence.  We could also say that we should not confuse our opinions with the facts.

In dialogue the goal is not the accumulation of true statements - In meditation the goal is not to become a future enlightened me.

Choiceless awareness must necessarily include awareness of the seeker eagerly seeking to gain all those future spiritual goods and powers.

And if I see my greed - if there is an awareness of greed - but I still remain greedy, I still want wisdom and security - this is because we are not aware of the implication of greed.  We have not seen the whole movement of sorrow, what sorrow is, what it entails. We have not seen the source of harm. We have not seen the difference between control and acceptance.

In dialogue and in meditation we are experimenting with awareness of the self - we are enquiring into the possibility of peace and clarity.

Hi, couldn't find the one I was looking for, but here's a small selection of "freedom" quotes from "The First and Last Freedom"

>Silence is freedom from the past, from knowledge, from both conscious and unconscious memory; when the mind is completely silent, not in use, when there is the silence which is not a product of effort, then only does the timeless, the eternal come into being. That state is not a state of remembering- there is no entity that remembers, that experiences.

>There is understanding and freedom from the self only when I can look at it completely and integrally as a whole; and I can do that only when I understand the whole process of all activity born of desire which is the very expression of thought- for thought is not different from desire- without justifying it, without condemning it, without suppressing it; if I can understand that, then I shall know if there is the possibility of going beyond the restrictions of the self.

>Where there is judgement, where there is comparison and condemnation, openness of mind is absent; there can be no freedom from the tyranny of symbols and systems, no escape from the past and the environment. Introspection with a predetermined purpose, self-examination within the framework of some traditional code, some set of hallowed postulates- these do not, these cannot help us.

We are told that meditation is essential - but what is it?  Is it some kind of magical practice that transforms us over time?  Is it some kind of effort that I make to become better? Is it - as the zen buddhists tell us - enlightened action itself?

When we are encouraged to “sit with” something - like our anger - what does that mean?

>Are you aware of hurt? Are you aware that you are resisting, that you are frightened hurt might increase and invite more hurts? Are you aware that seeking the cause of hurt is a waste of time? So what happens? You are not spending energy inquiring into the cause of hurt. You are not building a wall around hurt in order not to be hurt more. You are no longer trying to cover it up. When you give your complete attention, you will see hurt is no longer there. Then only you can proceed to find out what love is.

Krishnamurti, Talk 2, Madras 1974

>Thought shattering itself against its own nothingness is the explosion of meditation.

Krishnamurti's notebook

nb. we're meeting this Saturday 18th of July on Zoom at 5:30pm CEST (thats 9pm in India and 11:30am EDT) - comment below, or message me if you'd like to take part.

“The approach to the problem either breaks down the problem, or increases the problem”

- 29th Jan 1978

It can be often observed how people ask the wrong questions in approaching our human problems.

For example, the problem of division is approached through ideas about tolerance. The problem of immorality is approached through social morality. An unfavourable trend is opposed by a counter culture.

These reactions - being born of disorder - sustain disorder. We ignore “what is” in favour of an ideal.

“But if we don’t act, nothing will change” is often the response. But is the actor separate from that which he wishes to change? To tolerate you, I must still see you as separate to me. To rely on societal morals is conformity, which is still immoral. A counter culture is born of its opposite: both parties need each other to sustain their ideologies.

So our approach maintains disorder.

After seeing this in society, which is not separate from ourselves, can we see the same mechanism in our personal life? Before we ask a question: “how do I become free” , for example, can we see the “me” who is asking is conditioned and therefore can never be free? In that seeing, there is freedom. In seeing fully our own disorder, there is order.

A question is a beautiful thing. It may be more important than the answer which we seek. The seeking only blinds us from what is staring us in the face. The framing of the question may already contain its answer.

Meditation is an invitation to set ourselves free. 

We are invited to a Psychological revolution - a call to freedom from the authority directing our lives : our primitive and incoherent psyche.

Why?  Because we are causing a lot of pain and harm - despite our deep longing for comfort and security.  Our beliefs and our fears are driving us to turn against ourselves and our planet.  

Is this revolution possible?  Can we escape the authority of our thoughts and emotions?  Can we be free of our beliefs and fears?   Can we escape our mechanical propensity for suffering?  Maybe, maybe not.

Meanwhile another revolution is already underway - the AI revolution.   Our minds are currently undergoing a mutation - we are in a new era - what we call humans are now a rudimentary form of cyborg (machine/human hybrids).

What this entails is that our knowledge and understanding is not confined to our own biological brains - a lot of our thinking and understanding is being carried out by LLMs (Large Language Model robots).  Also our thoughts and our beliefs have become a lot more sophisticated and beguiling.   They appear less confused - when expressed by AI chatbots - they have gained in authority.

This is happening to us right now.  Despite not having resolved the issues of human evolution : the big brain, the increased cognition still dominated by primitive fears.   We have been pulled into our next incarnation as a society : an even more powerful hybrid brain, still carrying its unresolved primitive drives.

https://preview.redd.it/1rkdkoih3lch1.png?width=939&format=png&auto=webp&s=4d760bccc123f71d24072cf87f3523a6d3951c3a

>Are you aware of hurt? Are you aware that you are resisting, that you are frightened hurt might increase and invite more hurts? Are you aware that seeking the cause of hurt is a waste of time?

>So what happens? You are not spending energy inquiring into the cause of hurt. You are not building a wall around hurt in order not to be hurt more. You are no longer trying to cover it up. When you give your complete attention, you will see hurt is no longer there. Then only you can proceed to find out what love is.

(J. Krishnamurti, talk 2, Madras, 1974)

"seeking the cause of hurt is a waste of time" !?!? - is this because the retelling of past trauma mainly confirms self-identity? Is this because affirming or confirming my pain just makes me stronger?

"When you give complete attention, hurt is no longer there" Does this mean we have observed "hurt" - or that "hurt" cannot be observed?

The starting point for yesterday's dialogue centered on Freud's Id, Ego and Superego model of the psyche.

The id, ego, superego model basically says that our behavior is an outcome of a psychological struggle - between what I want and what should be.

What I heard during the dialogue was that this ongoing dance or negotiation between our "higher" and "lower" drives would be forever ongoing - that it did not include a possible resolution. 

Our life in the cycle of id/superego would just continue to be a continual tapdance between contradictory forces - forever pulled by opposing thought/emotions.

There is no resolution of conflict from within that cycle of conflict.

And some people will conclude : Therefore we must learn to love the dance.

Is that the only conclusion?  Is the self always present?  Always the only thing governing our lives?   The sole master of our experience and behavior?   Is awareness of the whole movement of this habitual struggle/dance not possible?   Can fear not be seen from outside of fear?

It has been suggested that we look at the conflict between Authority and Desire.  

To help, we have been presented with a classical model of the psyche, comprised of : 

The “it”, the “I”, and the “boss of me” (aka id, ego, and superego.  Or es, ich and über-ich in the original German)

The id represents our primal drives (desire, anger, fear, hunger etc).
The ego is me, the self.
The superego represents authority (ie. our internalised cultural rules)

And my role as the ego is to negotiate between my unconscious drives and impulses (id) and my moral conscience (superego) in order to best navigate reality.

For example, if we take the case of a smoker : I want to smoke cigarettes, but I know that not taking care of my health is bad.   So I negotiate a compromise where I just smoke 3 or 4 a day.  That way I’m not too miserable but also not causing too much harm. 

nb. we're meeting this Saturday 4th of July on Zoom at 5:30pm CEST (thats 9pm in India and 11:30am EDT) - comment below, or message me if you'd like to join in.

Are We Mistaking a Paradox for a Problem?
In On Dialogue, David Bohm makes an interesting distinction between a problem and a paradox.
A problem is something that can be solved. It has assumptions that make the question coherent, and with enough understanding or skill we expect to find an answer.
A paradox is different. It arises from contradiction within our own thinking. Trying to solve a paradox as though it were a problem only creates more confusion. Bohm suggests that a paradox isn't resolved in the same way as a problem. Instead, it may dissolve when the contradiction is seen directly.
This raises an interesting question for dialogue:
When we talk about ending human conflict, fear, sorrow, or self-concern, are we dealing with problems to be solved? Or are these actually paradoxes created by the way thought operates?
If our thinking is itself divided or contradictory, can that same thinking resolve the difficulties it creates? Or does real change begin only when we become aware of the contradiction itself?
What do you think? Is the psychological condition of humanity fundamentally a problem or a paradox?

During our last live Dialogue session, our topic was:

"What does it mean to resolve sorrow?"

But the conversation drifted into a different question:

Do we need to deal with each emotion separately, or can emotions such as sorrow, fear, jealousy, anger, and greed be understood as expressions of a deeper movement?

Many approaches encourage us to work on our emotions one by one : managing anger, overcoming fear, processing grief, reducing anxiety, and so on. There is certainly value in understanding each of these carefully.

But is there a common root?

Aren't all my emotions connected to a sense of me and mine - my success, my failure, my image, my security, my hopes, my losses.

If so, then perhaps sorrow is not a series of fragmented problems to be solved separately. Perhaps it is one expression of a broader movement of self-concern.

Freedom from sorrow does not depend on us resolving in advance all the different particular situations of our daily life : which school to go to? what to say to my boss tomorrow at work? etc - we seem to understand that.

We could say that we need to be attentive to whatever particular psychological discomfort is arising in us at any one moment - but do we need to be prepared for every variation of sorrow in advance?

On the other hand : "seeing the whole movement of self" or "the total transformation of our psyche" - does sound like a huge (insurmountable? impossible?) task. Too much for me to take on?

What does it mean to resolve fear and greed?

Most of us are familiar with fear and greed. We are aware of these emotions. Yet awareness alone does not seem to solve the problem. Why is that?   Is there something deeper, or wider that must be seen?

What gives fear its power?

Perhaps it's not enough to see that fear exists, maybe we need to see how fear becomes real? To see what fear makes us do? 

What is the ongoing process by which thought creates a "me" and then acts from that? 

• What gives power to fear and greed?
• How does experience create a "me"?
• Is it that “me” who wants to resolve fear and greed?

>The root of all fear   The craving to become causes fears.
The state of non-fear is not negation, it is not the opposite of fear nor is it courage.

>In understanding the cause of fear, there is its cessation, not the becoming courageous, for in all becoming there is the seed of fear.

>Through self-awareness we begin to discover and so comprehend the cause of fear, not only the superficial but the deep casual and accumulative fears. Fear is both inborn and acquired; it is related to the past, and to free thought-feeling from it, the past must be comprehended through the present.

>The past is ever wanting to give birth to the present which becomes the identifying memory of the “me” and the “mine,” the “I.” The self is the root of all fear.   

(Krishnamurti, the book of life)

>My life has been full of terrible misfortunes, most of which never happened 

(Michel de Montaigne)

nb. we're meeting this Saturday 20th of June on Zoom at 5:30pm CEST (thats 9pm in India and 11:30am EDT) - comment below, or message me if you'd like to participate.

If you’ve been watching events unfold in the USA you might have noticed that people on opposite sides of the political fence are not able to understand each other.  The breakdown in communication is such that a recent NPR poll showed that 1 in 3 Americans believe violence against their political opponents is a good idea.  Probably because political opponents see each other as dangerous maniacs.
Because of this violence, 2 in 3 Americans are now afraid to voice their opinions - which is ironic in the land of free speech.

Humans all have the same brain - so it's a bit odd that we have so much difficulty understanding one another.  We generally all have the same psychology too - we want to thrive and prosper.  But when a progressive and a conservative look at the world, we don’t see the same reality.

Progressives make up the minority.  There are just way more conservatives in the world.  In the USA it's probably a 52% to 48% split (don’t quote me on that).   And on the planet as a whole, progressives become vanishingly rare.  Progressives are WEIRD.   

By WEIRD we are referring to people whose psychology has been transformed by the societal upheavals that their ancestors had to endure.  Something happened to the people living in north-west Europe that led to the massive adoption of Humanism and Rationalism - culminating in the Enlightenment of the 17th century.
WEIRD is an acronym for Western Educated Industrialised Rich and Democratic.  But of course you don’t have to be living in the “west” to be a WEIRDo - nor are all rich, blond people WEIRDos.  
You’re more likely to be WEIRD if higher education plays a big part in your family history - or if your ancestors come from some urban center in north-western Europe.

Of course, the split in mindsets is not perfect - ideas bleed between tribes, and WEIRDos have not completely lost their old neural pathways.  Both parties can respect reason and logic to an extent, and both can worry about vampires and werewolves after hearing a good scary story.

But why do we get so angry when we hear each other’s political opinions?  One reason is that we have very different moral systems - which means that our understanding of good and bad is not the same.

The traditional moral system is a complex structure built on 6 fundamentals : Fairness, Loyalty, respect for Authority, Purity, Care and Autonomy.  
However the progressives have lost at least half of those fundamentals - wrong or right for a left leaning Liberal is mostly dependent on Fairness and Care (with a dash of Autonomy).  

When a Republican insists on the sanctity of loyalty to the nation, respect for traditional wisdom, purity of the tribe etc - the Democrat doesn’t get wtf they're talking about.   And both think the other is nuts.

nb.  the above rant is based on Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations theory and the WEIRD concept from cultural psychology 

What is karma?  A modern definition of the Buddhist concept.

>Karma  noun
The process by which intent and action (ie. self-concerned behavior) leads to rebirth in samsara.

It is best viewed as the psychological process that gives rise to self and suffering.  Karma is the action of making me real, and what I know true.   The feeling of being a “me” - or the sense of self - being that which is reborn.  

An example of the process in action goes as follows :  

1. I believe that if I don’t get something I want, I will feel unhappy.
2. My belief is confirmed : I do actually feel bad when I fail to obtain the objects I desire.
3. Thus my existence - and the importance of what I want - are both confirmed and reinforced as real
4. As a consequence the tendency to feel like me and chase after my desires continues unabated.

>Samsara   noun
Running around in the circles of suffering due to Karma

I'm repeating this question - because its a great question that someone asked here recently, but unfortunately their post was removed.

Are you the voice in your head?

Are you that which listens?

Great question that a mad guru could use to lead us down the garden path - unless we are clear with what we mean by self and listening.

Usually the bait and switch is between the ego self and capital S-Self (whatever those might mean and if they even exist outside of our imaginations) - and between motivated listening and some kind of fuller awareness.

And once we have swallowed the bait of confusion we can now be lead anywhere. - from nonsense : everything is valid.

For many years I had a question : what is meditation without insight?  I looked at people practising various forms of traditional meditation techniques and wondered what it is we were doing - whether it had any value.
Most of the techniques are basically geared towards freeing us from getting caught up in thought - and this might in itself be beneficial in that the nervous system can relax - it's healthy.  (like going for a walk in nature)
But relaxing for a while thanks to some method is not the same as freedom via understanding - once I’m off the cushion and back in the real world, my worries become real and overpowering again.

The only way that freedom from the known becomes natural and automatic is when the “whole movement” of sorrow has been seen.  We need a clear insight into what the movement of self implies, in order to recoil from it instinctively.  It's only when it has been seen clearly that self-concern is the source of harm, that we are revulsed by it - without effort.

But during a recent Insight Dialogue I heard something that finally bridged the gap between practice and insight.  A participant said something along the lines that the “discovery of space” - i.e. the silence that can be encountered in meditation - was itself insight.

And what clicked for me was something like this : 

• If a meditator discovers a calm space during their practice, this is in itself the insight (or demonstration of the fact) that their everyday reality based in thought is not fundamental - that existence does not necessarily equate with fragmentation, effort and becoming.
• And if the meditator regularly keeps coming back to their practice does this not mean that they have seen the superiority of bliss or peace over fear and effort?   The superiority of space over suffering?

Methods and practices are obviously not foolproof - we can become addicted to silence - but I do feel somewhat closer to statements like “meditation is itself enlightenment” or the term :  “silent illumination” - insight free from concepts or dramatic experiences of altered consciousness.

PS. also thanks to Captain James T. Kirk