Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

guidance


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 132 in total
Thu, 14 May 2020 #1
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 913 posts in this forum Offline

Group Discussion 6th December, 1947 | Madras, India

Let us try and understand what guidance means and why you seek guidance. You are lost, you are confused, you are in turmoil, you do not know how to behave; you do not like that state and want to get out of it to clarity. Therefore, you approach somebody else for guidance, to seek direction. It is like a baby who seeks guidance from the mother or from the teacher because it does not know and it is curious to know the name of the bird or the name of the tree and so on. You look to that somebody to show you the way on conduct - economic, social, spiritual, physiological, biological, etc.

What is the relationship between you and me? You are aware that you are confused, confused in relationship, confused in ideas, confused in society which is already confused - religiously and psychologically - everywhere you are confused, everything is on the decline. So, you come and seek my guidance to get out from there, on all the different levels of consciousness. If this is correct, then, you have made me your guide. But, I refuse to be your guide; I say "Look at your confusion", which you refuse. Therefore, there is no relationship between us.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 14 May 2020 #2
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 913 posts in this forum Offline

This is clearly the state of humanity today. And our so-called leaders are adding fuel to the fire with their inconsistent approach rather than making it clear that they don't know either. Even the figures produced are factually incorrect, the purest approach seems to me to be the number of deaths that die more, to compare to the average death rate in the same period of previous years. Even here in Belgium - where all suspected corona deaths are also counted - that is higher than the reported ones.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Thu, 14 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 14 May 2020 #3
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 190 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti, in the opening post of this thread:
What is the relationship between you and me? You are aware that you are confused, confused in relationship, confused in ideas, confused in society which is already confused...I refuse to be your guide; I say "Look at your confusion", which you refuse. Therefore, there is no relationship between us.

The implication is that K has clarity and we have confusion. Is that so? Why don't we question his authority? Why don't we question if he is clear? And if he is clear, then he is not the world. The world is confused. He is clear. And there is no relationship between the two.

He refuses to give guidance, which we believe will change our confusion into clarity. But he says, "Look at your confusion." Isn't that guidance? Why else would he say it? So he is giving guidance.

Why should I look at my confusion? Aren't I too confused to look?

Yes, we can talk about our seeking guidance from experts on covid. But K is talking about something very fundamental about confusion and clarity, isn't he? And that generates many questions.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Thu, 14 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 14 May 2020 #4
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 913 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam, quoting K. wrote:
Therefore, there is no relationship between us.

idiot ? wrote:
Why should I look at my confusion? Aren't I too confused to look?

am I confused to see that both the leaders and their followers, whether from the left or from the right, from the red or from the blue, from the rich or from the poor, are out of a relationship, out of touch with each other?

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 16 May 2020 #5
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 130 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Why should I look at my confusion? Aren't I too confused to look?

This is a good question!

I start looking when I start observing the consequences of not looking or seeking guidance. Or in other words, when I start realizing what I am doing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 16 May 2020 #6
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Why don't we question if he is clear? ... Why should I look at my confusion? Aren't I too confused to look?

Out of my own state of confusion, can I question, look into and understand whether or not "K" sees with clarity? To me at least, it seems obvious that where “I am” confused, confusion inevitably plays a part in all that I do - including my questioning of K's clarity.

K says in the opening quote:

You are lost, you are confused, you are in turmoil, you do not know how to behave; you do not like that state and want to get out of it to clarity. Therefore, you approach somebody else for guidance, to seek direction.

Do I need to accept K's authority on this? I SEE this turmoil reflected back at me when I look inwardly. Is the seeing of it me accepting K’s authority? Is it me saying that "K is clear”? Or is it me looking directly at inner confusion, and SEEING “the thing” directly? I do see “the thing” - the confusion, the not knowing what to do. I’m NOT too confused to see it and I’m NOT accepting K’s authority about it. K pointed to it and I see it for myself.

So isn't it seen that one CAN look at one’s own confusion directly, without accepting someone else's word as to whether one can or cannot see it? And to go deeper into one's inner state, is it necessary to first look into someone else’s clarity or confusion, opinions, ideas, advice, authority?

CAN one start looking into confusion from anywhere but one’s own confusion? Is it wise to look into whether K or anyone else sees clearly if - from the very beginning of my enquiry - I myself am confused? Can my questioning of K's clarity be anything else but tainted by my confusion? My confusion can’t help but infiltrate all that I do, if I'm not attentive to it. Is it not essential first to look at - be attentive to - my own confusion, not someone else’s clarity? If I say “I’m too confused to look”, then I might as well pack up my bags and go home. But I do observe that I'm confused. Should I wait until confusion ends? Is confusion going to end by waiting it out or by pretending to myself that I am NOT confused?

I can of course throw everything K says out the window, if I must. I don’t think it’s necessary, but I can. Or I can look at it, consider it, and then throw out whatever I don't see for myself. In the context of self-understanding, in the context of all we talk about here, whatever anyone says (including myself) needs to be examined, looked at, without giving authority to a speaker or his words.

So I don’t automatically accept what anyone says (including K or myself) without looking at it and questioning it, seeing the truth of it for myself. Looking is not intellectual analysis or assertions.

In the context of mind, relationship, action, contradiction, consciousness, and so on, what is looking at and questioning “what is”? What is "what is"? At first glance, the meaning of “what is” seems obvious. But looking into it, it is clear that “the thing” is enveloped in one's confusion. It is seen darkly. The mind cannot distinguish between fact and idea, opinion, belief, and so on. Confusion is rooted in thought but it is not itself "an idea". It is not imagined. There IS actual confusion.

To face the fact of my own confusion is the beginning of clarity, isn’t it? As long as the mind is convinced that “I understand it and you/they don’t”, is the mind able to look into and understand anything about itself, including confusion?

idiot ? wrote:
The implication is that K has clarity and we have confusion. Is that so? Why don't we question his authority? Why don't we question if he is clear?

Everything K or anyone else says needs to be questioned. But questioning does not mean outright rejection - unless of course one is simply not interested in it. To reject or oppose it without actually looking at it is no different than to accept it without looking at it. Both acceptance and rejection are based on thought. What part of the opening quote (for instance) is actually being questioned?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 16 May 2020 #7
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1868 posts in this forum Offline

'Clarity' isn't the opposite of 'confusion', it is the absence of it, isn't it? To desire a guide to help me out of my suffering is to be confused as to what is called for to go beyond suffering... Which is to 'see' the psychological 'trap' I am in? Someone who is clear may point at the trap but he/she can't "push" me out of it. That would be an act of violence wouldn't it? The trap(s) is 'what is' and it is always right in front of me.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 16 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 May 2020 #8
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
To desire a guide to help me out of my suffering is to be confused as to what is called for to go beyond suffering...

If I truly see this - not just the idea of it - then there is clarity in that. Then if that IS clear, I don’t seek a guide, do I.

Then what is left for me to “do”? I understand that I’m confused but do I understand what confusion IS, what produces it? To go beyond the mere realization that "I am confused", don't I have to understand its factors and root? Isn’t it by observing the factors that produce confusion, by observing the thoughts and emotions attached to the state of confusion, that one can understand the whole of it?

It is seen that the mind IS confused. So the need for observation is calmly understood. If that is so, then is it relevant or meaningful to talk of the absence of clarity or of how to end confusion?

So as I see it, the ideas of “opposites” and of “absence” are both irrelevant. As I see it, the only meaningful approach to understanding and ending confusion is simply to observe --- to observe the thoughts, contradictions and emotions that are part of confusion, to trace their root, and so on. To actually observe the whole of something - its genesis, components and activities - IS to understand it, not through efforts or theories but naturally, isn't it?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 17 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 May 2020 #9
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 190 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
'Clarity' isn't the opposite of 'confusion'

Quite often K warns that understanding things as opposites is misunderstanding. That makes sense because opposites imply a divided mind.

But that is precisely why the K quote at the beginning of this thread is so interesting! K himself sets up the opposition. Or, perhaps it's better to say: he describes the opposition going on in the one seeking guidance:

Krishnamurti:
You are lost, you are confused, you are in turmoil, you do not know how to behave; you do not like that state and want to get out of it to clarity.

And he concludes the quote with:

Krishnamurti:
Therefore, there is no relationship between us.

There is no relationship between confusion and clarity. That is striking.

I often find it quite fascinating when K sets up a oneness, like "You are the world," or when he sets up a clear division, like "There is no relationship between us." He does both. And both, to me, invite deeper questioning.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 17 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 May 2020 #10
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3498 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
What is "what is"? At first glance, the meaning of “what is” seems obvious. But looking into it, it is clear that “the thing” is enveloped in one's confusion. It is seen darkly. The mind cannot distinguish between fact and idea, opinion, belief, and so on. Confusion is rooted in thought but it is not itself "an idea". It is not imagined. There IS actual confusion.

This was a great post, Huguette...the whole thing. Much appreciated. I think confusion is inherent in the word...the label. The word is not the thing so there must be conflict and confusion between the two. I'm speaking of labeling any psychological or emotional state or movement. Or any action at all of 'me' that is confused or confusion or based upon inner confusion.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 17 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 May 2020 #11
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 190 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Everything K or anyone else says needs to be questioned. But questioning does not mean outright rejection

Here's what I question:

Krishnamurti:
If this is correct, then, you have made me your guide. But, I refuse to be your guide; I say "Look at your confusion", which you refuse. Therefore, there is no relationship between us.

K says the questioner has made him his guide. Elsewhere, K uses the terms "spiritual teacher" or "guru" instead of "guide" but they are all basically the same thing. K refuses to be a guru. But then he says, "Look at your confusion," which is being a guru. He's giving spiritual or life advice, like a guru. To me that's worth questioning. He refuses to be a guru but then acts like one in giving life advice.

Then K says the questioner refuses to look at his confusion, which means the questioner is not taking K's guru advice. Then K says, "Therefore, there is no relationship between us."

Obviously, K is talking about looking at "what is," in this case "what is" being confusion. K says look at it. According to K, to look directly at what is, is clarity, is transformation.

Krishnamurti, Commentaries on Living, Series 1, Chapter 71, Clarity In Action:
You are not maintaining clarity and opposing confusion: you are experiencing what is confusion, and you see that any action arising from it must inevitably be still more confusing. When you experience all this, not because another has said it but because you see it directly for yourself, then the clarity of what is is there; you do not maintain clarity, it is there.

But the questioner does not take K's guru advice and look at the confusion that is. The questioner does not look and therefore remains confused. Therefore, there is no relationship between the questioner and K. There is no relationship between confusion and clarity.

Obviously there is a relationship because the questioner asked about guidance and listened to K's answer. But there is not a relationship because he didn't really take in looking directly at confusion. Therefore he remained confused and out of relationship with clarity.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 17 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 May 2020 #12
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

re: #11

K did repeatedly imply, subtly and not so subtly, that all other gurus were phonies or tricksters, and he refused the label of guru for himself. As I see it, K sometimes WAS deceitful, pretentious, arrogant - inattentive. That only means that he was a human being who had been conditioned like the rest of us. Although he himself stated that he was a normal human being, he also did imply at various times that he was unique and that “the process” was somehow for the benefit of all humanity. He claimed that he had never felt conflict, and yet at times he acted conflicted.

Nonetheless, most of what K said withstands the scrutiny of undivided attention. To me, most of what he said does reveal the truth about one’s inner condition - if one LOOKS at what he is pointing out. So if we do not take him to be “the Delphic Oracle”, then it is totally up to each one of us to observe, to look into what he is pointing out and find out the truth of it for ourselves. And in those moments where K's inner division is displayed, we can see a fellow human being who is having a moment of inattention, a lack of self-awareness.

K talked about learning about oneself as an endless action. There is no end to learning, he said. Since there is learning, there can be teaching. Perhaps the rare person needs no teacher, but surely good teachers are needed for most of us. Most cannot learn from a blade of grass. The glory of a good teacher is that he or she can point things out without imposing his/her authority, without condescension, harshness or arrogance, without awakening fear in the student, and so on. In response to the good teacher’s pointing out various things, the student himself learns by observing, questioning and so understanding “the thing” on his own. But no matter what the subject matter, attention and observation are needed. For that, there must be interest in the matter, in both teacher and student.

But just as it is in the case of “news”, not all gurus or spiritual teachers are fake, as I see it. Of course, there is no lack of phoney gurus, life coaches, new age therapists, and so on, who are all too willing to sell their useless “secrets”, either for money or for some other currency.

Similarly, there are fake students of truth to whom the suffering of mankind is of no interest; who feel no connection to the whole of mankind and are therefore ONLY interested in acquiring a solution to their personal suffering.

And there are also those students who feel connected and sensitive to the whole of life, and who are actually interested in understanding the truth about the whole, not just their little corner. Do you know what I mean?

In the opening quote, before K said:

If this is correct, then, you have made me your guide. But, I refuse to be your guide; I say "Look at your confusion", which you refuse. Therefore, there is no relationship between us”

--- he said this:

You are aware that you are confused, confused in relationship, confused in ideas, confused in society which is already confused - religiously and psychologically - everywhere you are confused, everything is on the decline. So, you come and seek my guidance to get out from there, on all the different levels of consciousness”

--- without which the part you quoted is not understandable. He says, “If THIS is correct”, “THIS” meaning that:

you come and seek my guidance to get out from there, on all the different levels of consciousness.

In other words, the person has come to K because of his personal suffering and so he is seeking K's guidance

definition of guidance from Lexico.com: advice or information aimed at resolving a problem or difficulty, especially as given by someone in authority.

So isn’t it to the confused seekers of easy answers that K said, “If this is correct, then, you have made me your guide”?

In other words, the person wants K to tell the seeker exactly what to do to resolve his confusion. Therefore there is no relationship between K and the seeker. It is some kind of transaction.

But if there is a mutual looking into a problem or a question - not just a guru handing over ready-made guidance - then there IS a relationship. If there is attention on both the part of guru and student, there is a relationship.

But if K says “Look at your confusion” and the person refuses to look, then there CANNOT BE a relationship. Then the guru cannot BE a guru and the person cannot be a student, because that demands a relationship. It is not just an exchange of goods.

idiot ? wrote:
Obviously there is a relationship because the questioner asked about guidance and listened to K's answer. But there is not a relationship because he didn't really take in looking directly at confusion. Therefore he remained confused and out of relationship with clarity.

What do you mean by “he didn't really TAKE IN looking directly at confusion”?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 May 2020 #13
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 190 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
What do you mean by “he didn't really TAKE IN looking directly at confusion”?

I mean the questioner really didn't see the importance of directly looking and do it. That's what K means when he says, "you refuse," yes?

Anyway, thank you for your long post. Especially:

Huguette . wrote:
As I see it, K sometimes WAS deceitful, pretentious, arrogant - inattentive. That only means that he was a human being who had been conditioned like the rest of us...Nonetheless, most of what K said withstands the scrutiny of undivided attention.

I definitely agree that K was a human and not some perfect being. I also agree that he said important things that you can look into for yourself. I think most everyone here would agree with the latter. Perhaps some would disagree with the former.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 17 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 May 2020 #14
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 99 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Obviously there is a relationship because the questioner asked about guidance and listened to K's answer. But there is not a relationship because he didn't really take in looking directly at confusion. Therefore he remained confused and out of relationship with clarity.

It appears K is hinting to the questioner that he’s lacking the insight of the ‘observer is the observed’ or that ‘he is the world’, the reason being he’s taking responsibility only for the confusion and projecting the needed ‘clarity’ to outside the world and therefore making it abstract, the good and evil are treated as antithesis of each other. When the questioner starts to look, he cuts through that division and avoids the trap of opposites and acts directly. As for the relationship aspect, unless he takes part in observation, he isn’t truly related to the world and for him K being a part of it. And from K’s Guru perspective, since he possesses that insight, he’s related to the world and to the questioner (not as clarity related to confusion, but as a whole being’s relationship to another, despite the fact that another is in a state of confusion. In other words, the relationship is one-sided).

To come to the crux of your critique, K can’t directly act on the confusion despite the fact of his relationship, as a teacher, he attempts to awaken and leaves it at that. I think that’s an important thing to understand, unless the same evolution which helped the individual with psychological security in the face of violence and hurt as a child forces him/her to drop that when he/she’s sufficiently strong to deal it without that security, the individual is left to struggle with failed attempts at observation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 May 2020 #15
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
What do you mean by “he didn't really TAKE IN looking directly at confusion”?

idiot ? wrote:
I mean the questioner really didn't see the importance of directly looking and do it. That's what K means when he says, "you refuse," yes?

It seems to me that where the questioner doesn’t see the importance of directly looking and therefore doesn’t do it, it's because the questioner is focused on getting the answer which will help him “get” what he wants, which is relief of some sort from his suffering. The questioner wants his personal suffering, confusion, fear, and so on, to end. He doesn’t see that his suffering is the world’s suffering --- and/or he doesn’t care. He wants a way, a method to be handed to him on a silver platter, so to speak. He is not interested in doing the “work” which might free him --- and which also might NOT free him.

The questioner has decided or is convinced that there is “a way”, a method, that will accomplish what he wants, and that’s all that interests him. If that is the case, of course there is no relationship, no connection, no affection, between the questioner and the teacher.

It’s a bit like a man going to a prostitute and demanding sexual satisfaction or relief. It’s a trade - sex for money, money for sex. There’s no relationship.

What do you think?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 May 2020 #16
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3498 posts in this forum Offline

Nat: K can’t directly act on the confusion despite the fact of his relationship, as a teacher, he attempts to awaken and leaves it at that. I think that’s an important thing to understand, unless the same evolution which helped the individual with psychological security in the face of violence and hurt as a child forces him/her to drop that when he/she’s sufficiently strong to deal it without that security, the individual is left to struggle with failed attempts at observation.

So there’s really no way for the individual who is suffering to understand and be free...unless he’s “sufficiently strong.” For the rest of us it is pretty much hopeless and the suffering of the world goes on.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 May 2020 #17
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 99 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
So there’s really no way for the individual who is suffering to understand and be free...unless he’s “sufficiently strong.” For the rest of us it is pretty much hopeless and the suffering of the world goes on.

I won't say that Tom, on these matters it appears that each of us follow our own trajectories and no one ought be others judge. The very fact that observation can’t be sustained until a time comes ripe shows that it’s a process which could take any length of time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 May 2020 #18
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3498 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
The very fact that observation can’t be sustained until a time comes ripe shows that it’s a process which could take any length of time.

That’s the crux of the matter I think....’when the time is ripe’. Yet there’s another ‘way’ to perhaps speed the ripening, and that’s where the ‘teaching’ comes in. Perhaps listening to... or reading...a talk by K speeds the ripening.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 18 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 May 2020 #19
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 99 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Yet there’s another ‘way’ to perhaps speed the ripening, and that’s where the ‘teaching’ comes in. Perhaps listening to... or reading...a talk by K speeds the ripening.

Yes, but only the speaker of that statement know how different it is from a questioner approaching K for clarity from his confusion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 May 2020 #20
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 190 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
For the rest of us it is pretty much hopeless...

No, it is not all or nothing. There is some degree of opportunity for everyone. I become a little more aware and there is change. I notice I'm being hurtful to someone so I stop.

Now here we're talking about confusion and it can be harder to notice you're confused. If you could notice you were confused you wouldn't be so confused, would you? This is precisely what K is saying, yes?

Why does confusion come up with regard to a question about guidance? Because, to K, seeking guidance or a guru implies confusion:

Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom, Why Spiritual Teachers?:
First of all, why do we want a guru? We say we need a guru because we are confused and the guru is helpful; he will point out what truth is, he will help us to understand, he knows much more about life than we do, he will act as a father, as a teacher to instruct us in life; he has vast experience and we have but little; he will help us through his greater experience and so on and on. That is, basically, you go to a teacher because you are confused. If you were clear, you would not go near a guru. Obviously if you were profoundly happy, if there were no problems, if you understood life completely, you would not go to any guru. I hope you see the significance of this. Because you are confused, you seek out a teacher. You go to him to give you a way of life to clarify your own confusion, to find truth. You choose your guru because you are confused and you hope he will give you what you ask. That is you choose a guru who will satisfy your demand; you choose according to the gratification he will give you and your choice is dependent on your gratification. You do not choose a guru who says, ”Depend on yourself; you choose him according to your prejudices. So since you choose your guru according to the gratification he gives you, you are not seeking truth but a way out of confusion; and the way out of confusion is mistakenly called truth.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 18 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 May 2020 #21
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3498 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
Yes, but only the speaker of that statement know how different it is from a questioner approaching K for clarity from his confusion.

Through listening to, or reading, K., we actually observe ourselves...question ...inquire...explore the workings of our consciousness...and perhaps learn about the causes of inner division and confusion . This is obviously different than looking to K to remove my suffering.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 18 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 May 2020 #22
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 130 posts in this forum Offline

How do I know I am confused?

When I am in deep despair, as I have been sometimes over the past months, I do seek guidance in K, friends and whatever comes upon my path. But I am aware of what is implied in trying to be given a solution for a problem. But speaking to friends or reading an article about the problem may not be seeking for guidance in the bad sense.

Normally I think I am confused when I do not know what to do.

When things are running smoothly, I do not see myself as confused. But maybe in this state, my mind is even more confused without me realizing it.

Maybe we should define what is a confused mind, it seems obvious but maybe it is not.

So, without quoting K, :-), I put this question to you, and me as well, dear friends: what is a confused mind?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 May 2020 #23
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 190 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
what is a confused mind?

I would say that confusion is misunderstanding, lack of insight, disorder in the mind, wrong values, attachments, beliefs, prejudices, and so on. In other words, the whole structure of what we think, how we view things.

K basically says that you seek out a guru with all that confusion so you choose one that satisfies your nonsense. That may or may not be true. Sometimes we seek out someone to challenge our views. But perhaps that is just a different kind of gratification?

K says that spiritual teachers are basically bad but the best spiritual teacher points you back to yourself. In one sense, this is true, since you must look into matters directly, watch yourself in relationship. But in another sense, this doesn't work if you just continue to rely on and believe your own nonsense, right? Fortunately, your own nonsense rubs up against the world, is conflict, and so if you pay attention you begin to see this.

If you look at what K teaches, he says look into things for yourself. That is the most essential. But he also questions and encourages you to question many, many things, like beliefs, nationalism, opinions, and on and on. A lot of what he teaches is subtraction: clean your house of the nonsense. Put it in order. Watch yourself and see what's actually going on. Free yourself of the stickiness, your coloring over of reality.

So really, good spiritual teaching, if there is any, points you back to yourself AND encourages you to be aware and to question. The questioning and insight free you from your shackles, all the ideas that you hold onto.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 18 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 May 2020 #24
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3498 posts in this forum Offline

How do I know I am confused?

I’m suffering and I’m confused as to why I live like this. I’m confused because the Christians tell me one thing, the economist tells me I suffer because I don’t have enough money , the socialist tells me I suffer because of Capitalism, the Hindu or Jew tells me something else, my peers want me to go out to the football game and enjoy myself and ignore my suffering. Of course I’m confused as to why I suffer terribly...my wife or child or other loved one suffers.,,the poor in Africa suffer terribly and I feel the pain of knowing that.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 May 2020 #25
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 190 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
It’s a bit like a man going to a prostitute and demanding sexual satisfaction or relief. It’s a trade - sex for money, money for sex. There’s no relationship. What do you think?

I think it is very amusing that you are comparing Krishnamurti to a prostitute.

I see what you mean, that there's no real connection between K and someone seeking an easy method out of confusion.

But as I said, to me K says "there is no relationship" with the questioner because for K clarity is looking directly at what is, "what is" not being fixed but in motion. If the questioner refuses to consider that he seeks a guru due to confusion and therefore refuses to look directly at his confusion, then there is no relationship to the clarity of what is, which is where K is coming from.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 18 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 May 2020 #26
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
I think it is very amusing that you are comparing Krishnamurti to a prostitute.

Oh for heaven's sake. I'm not comparing anyone to anyone. It's not at all about K, the seeker, the prostitute or the john. It's about the operation of the human mind, action, relationship, and so on.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 May 2020 #27
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 190 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
It's about the operation of the human mind, action, relationship, and so on.

I know.

And that whore: Krishnamurti! ;^)

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 18 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 May 2020 #28
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

Funny jokes are welcome. Laughter is wonderful if it is spontaneous and not forced or fake. Jokes which are merely pretense at humour are useless and tiresome, perhaps a way of avoiding something.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 May 2020 #29
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5970 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
Normally I think I am confused when I do not know what to do.

Is this so? If one truly does not know what to do, if one realises that one does not know what to do, then is there confusion? Or does confusion arise when one is pulled in different directions, when part of one wants A, another part B, and so on?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 May 2020 #30
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5970 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I’m suffering and I’m confused as to why I live like this. I’m confused because the Christians tell me one thing, the economist tells me I suffer because I don’t have enough money , the socialist tells me I suffer because of Capitalism, the Hindu or Jew tells me something else, my peers want me to go out to the football game and enjoy myself and ignore my suffering.

Seems to me, Tom, that this should help clear up your confusion, rather than create it. If all these people, all these groups, ideologies, tell me different things, give me different, conflicting "solutions", these conflicting ideas point out to me just how confused the world is. And as a consequence, I reject such "window shopping" for ideas on what to do, and I am thrown back onto myself. If this happens, then hasn't a lot of confusion been cleared away?

That does not mean that "I know what to do". In fact I see the same thing within myself, a confused mess of conflicting ideas and feelings, as in the world around me.

The essential thing here, it seems to me, is seeing, as K eternally pointed out, the danger of accepting authority. When I look at the conflicting thoughts/feelings in myself, I see I cannot accept any of them as true, and the others false - I cannot accept any one of them as an authority over the others. And so I see that it is not possible that thought can clear up its own mess.

Seeing these things clearly, am I in a state of confusion, or clarity?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Tue, 19 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 132 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)