GORDS CONTEMPLATIVE BLOG

We Have No Love

This sums it up for me.

This is what Krishnamurti is about for me and most of the things that he says comes back to this.

For me the question becomes how do we bring love to the separation
We can not will away separation it just creates more division and separation.
But in presence the separation falls away
In presence we see the boundaries and division that we are and that we have  perpetuated and that we continue to perpetuate in the name of knowing, science, religion, common sense and understanding
But in authentic understanding knowing is something beyond our conventional development that we have become attached to.
From this place that we have been conditioned into,  the absence that we have created, we search for our way back through ways that create bigger boundaries that keep us from that truth.
KRISHNAMURTI
 You know, actually we have no love – that is a terrible thing to realize. Actually we have no love; we have sentiment; we have emotionality, sensuality, sexuality; we have remembrances of something which we have thought as love. But actually, brutally, we have no love. Because to have love means no violence, no fear, no competition, no ambition. If you had love you will never say, “This is my family.” You may have a family and give them the best you can; but it will not be “your family” which is opposed to the world. If you love, if there is love, there is peace. If you loved, you would educate your child not to be a nationalist, not to have only a technical job and look after his own petty little affairs; you would have no nationality. There would be no divisions of religion, if you loved. But as these things actually exist – not theoretically, but brutally – in this ugly world, it shows that you have no love. Even the love of a mother for her child is not love. If the mother really loved her child, do you think the world would be like this? She would see that he had the right food, the right education, that he was sensitive, that he appreciated beauty, that he was not ambitious, greedy, envious. So the mother, however much she may think she loves her child, does not love the child. So we have not that love. – Krishnamurti, The Collected Works, Vol. XV Varanasi 5th Public Talk 28th November 1964

Was Wittgenstein Right

We live like we know what love, truth, authenticity, freedom are but can it be that our contemporary understanding is inot helpful, influenced by concepts that are influenced by culture, society, language and the  structural fragmentation of philosophy and science. Are we better to look elsewhere for a more comprehensive understanding.

 

I have included an article from the NYT that explores Wittgensteins take on this. It is written by  Paul Horwich and is titled

Was Wittgenstein Right?

http://nyti.ms/1cXABtI

Concepts of Truth, Love, freedom, Authenticity

We live our lives as if we know what these concepts are. We use these words endlessly but can we truly understand what they represent through conventional meanings.

 

 SEARCH
THE STONE MARCH 3, 2013, 8:00 PM  539 Comments

Was Wittgenstein Right?

By PAUL HORWICH
The Stone

The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless.

 

 

Two NYT Times Articles

This is the third in a series of interviews about religion that I am conducting for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment isJohn D. Caputo, a professor of religion and humanities at Syracuse University and the author of “The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion Without Religion.”

In this article it can be a bit confusing but I think what he is saying is that religious thought is beyond fixed concepts, something that Krishnamurti  raises  a lot

http://nyti.ms/1gjQg8T

Scholarship and Politics: The Case of Noam Chomsky

Published: December 9, 2013

I enjoyed this article because he examines that relationship of thought to knowing. He talks about the cognitive limitations of thought and  benefits of discussion and sharing through language.  Gord

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/opinion/fish-scholarship-and-politics-the-case-of-noam-chomsky.html?smid=pl-share

Back to the Heart

Deconstructing God   Article from the NYT

A psychology professor has tapped into a rich vein of popular concern, concluding that people in recent decades have grown more self-centered and entitled. But is it true?

Sent from my iPad

 

These days I am really seeing how habitual it is for me to make effort to avoid feeling vulnerable. It is an obsession however unconscious as well of our collective consciousness. We are not taught to tolerate the reality of our vulnerability. There is a common perception that it is a place of weakness and insufficiency and this is reinforced in most aspects and relationships in life. You can see it at play in recent politics especially in the American Republicans who obsessively pressure President Obama away from a diplomatic focus towards adopting more aggressive tactics in his foreign policy approach, most recently with Russia and Iran. What is at the heart of this other than fear and an increased sense of vulnerability and insecurity. Male politicians don’t seem to ever understand that aggressive behaviour does not resolve anything.
Much of human behaviour seems to be about diverting from this place of consciousness. We are taught not to trust our vulnerability, especially males, and we lose the way to our hearts in this practice. Our relationships with others and with ourselves is compromised often coming to be about defending something that they don’t really understand about themselves a result of avoiding seeing a fundamental truth of our being. Many of us wake up to the realisation that there is a sense that something is missing in this way and sometimes we look to fill that gap in superficial ways that provide us with reminders that there is a deeper truth within. But as long as we are attached to ur traditionally conditioned social and cultural priorities, we remain quite habitually in a place of being veiled from our authentic experience of life. Ironically this place of vulnerability is where our sense of humanity and compassion emanates from and where we encounter an expanded sense of living fully in the mystery of living.
The way our world has become organized does not leave much space for feeling and relating from this place of vulnerability and therefore the collective and global experience has become one of fragmentation and separation. There have been substantial collective and global consequences of living in this way. We havent been able to sort out as of yet how to differentiate between authentic individual expression of our being and narcissistic self-indulgence and our collective global relationships reflect that.
Ultimately coming to live life in a way that is a more authentic, embracing of this truth of our vulnerability that we are, leads us to live at the heart and that ultimately affects the actions and decisions that we make.
Maybe I am wrong about this but ultimately every where I turn it seems that humanity is trapped in this place of self-indulgence and we entertain superficial gestures of giving and helping but we can not seem to take the step to genuinely change our ways to a degree that we do what we must to care for our planet and all its inhabitants. One thing that I do know is that I have to come to take responsibility in a way that is more inclusive and I realise that it is no easy step to move away from self fixation. I have discovered a very helpful and insightful book along the way in reading Timothy Frekes “The Mystery Experience”. He explores this experience of deeper living and ways that we can connect more authentically to life and to others. For some of us it involves making a conscious choice to look deeper within and to explore and more intimately come to know who and what we are.

Share this: