Start Again, Begin Anew:
"We are going together to journey into this enormous complex problem of understanding oneself. Please see the absolute essential necessity of it, that nobody can teach you about yourself except yourself. ... Awareness is not a matter of accumulation; it is learning, being aware from moment to moment. When you are not aware, don’t bother. Begin again so that your mind is always fresh. ..."
One must look at oneself as though for the first time, and look at it for the first time each time, and therefore never accumulate. ..."
(Inward Revolution: Madras Talk, 13 January 1971; KFT Newsletter, Spring 2006; ellipses added)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Site note on the all-pervasive practice of anonymity on the web:
Dialogue groups and forums on the net have a serious flaw in that they allow anonymity of their contributors. (This was an inbuilt structure deliberately set up by the original internet/web designers and cannot now be changed; a whole new superstructure would be needed to force posters to forums, social networks and chat rooms etc, to display their full identities, which would eliminate anonymous rants, spiteful comments and deceitful identities.) Those who abnegate their responsibility for what they contribute by using a handle or avatar or username and not their full name (in addition to withholding all their private email addresses) allow themselves a convenient get out to withdraw at any time from dialogues, or to throw around claims and counterclaims with impunity. (This includes Administrators/Moderators of these groups, some of whom also hide behind the 'security' of anonymity.)
This anonymous comforting wall results invariably in dialogues of superficiality, aggression and oneupmanship, hence conflict (thus the inevitable demise of the old Kinfonet study group - the newly renovated discussion forum on the site is, for the time being, self-moderated; it now prefers one's actual name to be supplied, but doesn't enforce it, as does the KFA forum). In actual fact, the ubiquity of this evasive practice of anonymity throws into stark relief the clever masks that the self puts on to avoid facing up to things. It is simply game playing - or role playing - according to a self-image one has of oneself. Moreover, interminable chatting on the Internet is a time-filler, a great time-waster. This superficial activity dominates online participation, along with the incessant demand for distraction and entertainment.
If you take full responsibility for what you write, and you are serious about it, and what you write is worthy enough for others to read, you would have no qualms whatsoever in putting your full name to it, would you not?
"We are going together to journey into this enormous complex problem of understanding oneself. Please see the absolute essential necessity of it, that nobody can teach you about yourself except yourself. ... Awareness is not a matter of accumulation; it is learning, being aware from moment to moment. When you are not aware, don’t bother. Begin again so that your mind is always fresh. ..."
One must look at oneself as though for the first time, and look at it for the first time each time, and therefore never accumulate. ..."
(Inward Revolution: Madras Talk, 13 January 1971; KFT Newsletter, Spring 2006; ellipses added)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Site note on the all-pervasive practice of anonymity on the web:
Dialogue groups and forums on the net have a serious flaw in that they allow anonymity of their contributors. (This was an inbuilt structure deliberately set up by the original internet/web designers and cannot now be changed; a whole new superstructure would be needed to force posters to forums, social networks and chat rooms etc, to display their full identities, which would eliminate anonymous rants, spiteful comments and deceitful identities.) Those who abnegate their responsibility for what they contribute by using a handle or avatar or username and not their full name (in addition to withholding all their private email addresses) allow themselves a convenient get out to withdraw at any time from dialogues, or to throw around claims and counterclaims with impunity. (This includes Administrators/Moderators of these groups, some of whom also hide behind the 'security' of anonymity.)
This anonymous comforting wall results invariably in dialogues of superficiality, aggression and oneupmanship, hence conflict (thus the inevitable demise of the old Kinfonet study group - the newly renovated discussion forum on the site is, for the time being, self-moderated; it now prefers one's actual name to be supplied, but doesn't enforce it, as does the KFA forum). In actual fact, the ubiquity of this evasive practice of anonymity throws into stark relief the clever masks that the self puts on to avoid facing up to things. It is simply game playing - or role playing - according to a self-image one has of oneself. Moreover, interminable chatting on the Internet is a time-filler, a great time-waster. This superficial activity dominates online participation, along with the incessant demand for distraction and entertainment.
If you take full responsibility for what you write, and you are serious about it, and what you write is worthy enough for others to read, you would have no qualms whatsoever in putting your full name to it, would you not?
Essay:
Too Radical for the World's Good
People as a rule steer clear of radicals. We are conditioned against the very word itself. There is great comfort and security in going along with the status quo, in sticking to conventional wisdom. There is safety in toeing the line with the majority, where everything is accepted and nothing is challenged in any serious way. To conform to the prevailing social ethos is the first major rule one learns in life.
In the stock market, in finance and economics, they call it the herd mentality. (It was dramatically present during the bubble preceding the recent global financial crisis.) It's silent, it's omnipresent - and it determines everything.
Just as in the historical prevalence of teen gangs (a reactive, groupthink mentality), the sense of belonging to a tight-knit gathering (from sporting clubs to political parties) is a powerful psychological soporific. This mindset is strong in social organizations like the police and the military - indeed, throughout all groups and institutions in society, to varying degrees. All independent and critical thinking is actively discouraged, despite protestations that people are forever searching for so-called ideas out of the box. (Ideas that appear to be actually out of the box - which is an oxymoron - are cleverly side-stepped or flatly ignored.) And all the leaders of these various power groups (political, business, the legal profession, bureaucracy) are the very epitome of conformity, with the occasional idea that they have borrowed or stolen from others thrown in for good measure.
If the group goes down, or indeed society as a whole goes down, then at least everyone can be comforted by the fact that they are all in the same boat.
Whereas a radical by nature is one who challenges accepted dogma, breaks longstanding traditions, stands up to social inertia. He or she can expose the hidden assumptions on which so much of human behaviour is based. This is always seen as courageous and people do not like displays of psychological courage, for it highlights their own weaknesses and perceived faults. (This explains, of course, why whistleblowers are universally shunned by both the mass media and the public; though this situation is slowly changing, with enabling legislation in some countries.) They feel threatened by the individual who exercises critical thinking, who challenges their comforting ideas of respectability, conformity, and loyalty. So they invariably shun radical thinkers. (The description is not the described; the word radical, not used as a label, is used merely to point to someone outside the heavily conditioned mind.)
That is, of course, until (or if) their new insights - so-called memes - are eventually accepted into mainstream thought.
This inherent wariness of radical people is instilled in all of us at a very early age by our parents, who have known the thought-prison of conformity their whole lives. They want their children to blend in at all costs, to not stand out from the crowd, and never to challenge the social order. Fit in - or else. Your whole livelihood depends upon it.
This raises a central point in the whole discussion about the creativity of the individual, about self-inquiry: Krishnamurti's insights have never entered the mainstream and show no sign of doing so.
* * *
The reason is simple: his philosophy, so-called, has never been accepted into the lofty halls of academe, the U.S. Ivy League. Sure, there are some universities in America where it slots into the curricula in a marginal way. But his books are not accepted in the pre-eminent eight universities comprising the League, which are the world's breeding ground for all textbooks and subject knowledge. Thus, countless millions of graduates from across the world come out of these hallowed halls of learning with no understanding of him and what he said at all. This ignorance thus ripples through every level of society, as these graduates become the new leaders of society.
Of course, the reason he is not accepted into higher education (inter alia) is because he flatly rejected all the respected authorities in the field of thought and philosophical knowledge. That is, he did not take as a commencing standpoint the extensive writings of Descartes, the father of philosophy (to take the most prominent example) from which to build his discourse (he had, of course, never even read the books of Descartes). Thus the current leading professors in their various fields would never take him seriously (if they bothered to read him at all, which they don't), as he was and is not considered to be 'learned in any way. He is not, therefore, an authority, to whom they can defer for inspiration and the furtherance of their established ideas.
Hence he has been completely ignored, and there is no sign this situation will change.
(On a related note, the writer, in one of a number of tangles over the time with Wikipedia editors, was confronted with a responding casually dismissive statement on an article background Talk page that Krishnamurti was, to quote, "a historical curiosity" - thus in one brief phrase tossing out the entire edifice of self-inquiry and self-understanding put out by this man over 60 long years. The author of this comment had inevitably never even read him. Such is the avoidance of looking at the facts of oneself that exists at the very core of the human condition.)
Of course, the talks do not address the social problems of the mass public, for these are only individual problems writ large. Transformation begins and ends and is solely concerned with the individual - using this word advisedly, pointing to a single human being. It is each of us who are important, not society at large. Nevertheless, consider this excerpt, addressed to a Saanen gathering:
"... the difficulty is society is so strong, the temptations of the young person who wants to be with other young children who are already corrupt, who have already, you know, have accepted all the nonsense of society, and it becomes extremely difficult to bring up a child who will not yield to the tremendous weight of society."
(Fifth Question & Answer Meeting, in Saanen, July, 1980; ellipsis added)
Here it is: "The tremendous weight of society." Society, which is the outer environment, is the predominant factor in conditioning (there appears also to be unconscious, innate brain conditioning, but this is another issue). It applies not only to children of course but more especially to adults. For people who are married with children and jobs, with innumerable social and work commitments, this weight is a heavy burden indeed. Beyond money itself, which brings all the basic necessities of life - never mind the social status and seductive material goods and all the rest - the biggest threat in self-inquiry is to ongoing relationships. Wife, husband, friends, relatives, work colleagues, acquaintances and social networks. The potential loss of all these is reason enough for one to shrink from self-exploration - in fact to actively react against it, which is what is happening in the mind all the time. This crushing weight of the status quo is a major factor in the resistance of the mind to radical understanding.
* * *
It is bad enough that the talks systematically discard all the crutches that thought has built up over millennia. They are also a great negation: for he came not to build, but to destroy. Tear down, that is, in order to bring about the new. (In destruction lies creation; ending is the beginning of something new; only through complete negation can one come to the positive. In this sense the insights would bring about a transformation of human consciousness, ending once and for all the complete domination of thought over the mind and the brain.)
Here are some of the major lifelong psychological crutches that are systematically demolished:
* Security - there is no such thing in life, either physically or psychologically (there is in fact security, but not as we know it);
* The acquisition of psychological knowledge, over time (knowledge is always limited and only brings with it ignorance);
* Attachment to people, authorities and things (attachment brings dependence, preventing the energy of the mind from being aware of the fact);
* All psychological memories, good or bad (beyond essential practical memories for everyday living).
Any way you look at it, this is a radical approach at its worst. Moreover, one can voluntarily give up all these things and yet there are no guarantees about what comes next. Indeed, any motive involved at all in this renunciation/destruction heralds the immediate end of perception, insight, and clarity. The self is motive, all action with motive only perpetuates this self, hence you are back precisely where you started.
However, the most fundamental issue addressed in the talks is the ending of time. This means the destruction of all self-achievement. self-improvement, self-fulfillment, all goal-oriented living. Yet this is what everyone wants, for these lie at the very core of the desires that make up the self. Of becoming someone, someday. Of recognition: of fame, fortune and so-called freedom of choice.
It only gets worse. The total negation of time also means the end of all hope. To live entirely in the present, with no desires or wishes for the future; to forgo all gradualism, arrival, or result; that is, to deeply understand that the now is all that there is. (Of course, one has to take the future into account in all practical matters in daily living.) Indeed, this self-inquiry flatly denies any and all evolution of the psyche. The mind has turned the obvious outward evolution inward, hoping that over time the mind (hence society at large) will experience enlightenment; it simply will not happen that way. Insight is now. Most consider this to be such a revolutionary view they cannot even contemplate it, much less live it.
The truth is that this man's words are uncompromisingly radical, beyond doubt. He did not bring comfort, and he unequivocally brooked no guides or help or techniques for awareness. You have to stand alone, with no support, and with no self-identity. The mind must be completely silent. And so people have walked away from these insights, in their millions. Billions remain ignorant of his very existence, and hence of the pivotal issue of self-awareness. It will be a long time, if ever, before people will be willing to look at all this. That is, to look at the fact. It may first require a complete social collapse.
* * *
The evolved human mind today is predominantly sensation-seeking, intensely reactive, and consequently immensely petty. Take a look around. Such a mind does not have the energy to observe. Energy is wasted and dissipated in gadgets, in endless entertainments and distractions - the new opium of the people. The human race is asleep. Hence is it any wonder, after all these decades, that no-one has changed?
Yet, all this is not to suggest for one moment that self-transformation is impossible, which is what most people tacitly hold to be true. To the contrary, it is definitely possible.
After all, it's been done.
Daniel Marks
September, 2009
[Note: This essay has been accepted by the editorial board for publication in the upcoming Link, which would normally be issued early 2010. However, the Link editor has advised this writer that the magazine itself has been discontinued; a final edition will be issued worldwide some time in the 2010 (Northern) Spring]
See Also: Beliefs - A Look Inside the Mind
Too Radical for the World's Good
People as a rule steer clear of radicals. We are conditioned against the very word itself. There is great comfort and security in going along with the status quo, in sticking to conventional wisdom. There is safety in toeing the line with the majority, where everything is accepted and nothing is challenged in any serious way. To conform to the prevailing social ethos is the first major rule one learns in life.
In the stock market, in finance and economics, they call it the herd mentality. (It was dramatically present during the bubble preceding the recent global financial crisis.) It's silent, it's omnipresent - and it determines everything.
Just as in the historical prevalence of teen gangs (a reactive, groupthink mentality), the sense of belonging to a tight-knit gathering (from sporting clubs to political parties) is a powerful psychological soporific. This mindset is strong in social organizations like the police and the military - indeed, throughout all groups and institutions in society, to varying degrees. All independent and critical thinking is actively discouraged, despite protestations that people are forever searching for so-called ideas out of the box. (Ideas that appear to be actually out of the box - which is an oxymoron - are cleverly side-stepped or flatly ignored.) And all the leaders of these various power groups (political, business, the legal profession, bureaucracy) are the very epitome of conformity, with the occasional idea that they have borrowed or stolen from others thrown in for good measure.
If the group goes down, or indeed society as a whole goes down, then at least everyone can be comforted by the fact that they are all in the same boat.
Whereas a radical by nature is one who challenges accepted dogma, breaks longstanding traditions, stands up to social inertia. He or she can expose the hidden assumptions on which so much of human behaviour is based. This is always seen as courageous and people do not like displays of psychological courage, for it highlights their own weaknesses and perceived faults. (This explains, of course, why whistleblowers are universally shunned by both the mass media and the public; though this situation is slowly changing, with enabling legislation in some countries.) They feel threatened by the individual who exercises critical thinking, who challenges their comforting ideas of respectability, conformity, and loyalty. So they invariably shun radical thinkers. (The description is not the described; the word radical, not used as a label, is used merely to point to someone outside the heavily conditioned mind.)
That is, of course, until (or if) their new insights - so-called memes - are eventually accepted into mainstream thought.
This inherent wariness of radical people is instilled in all of us at a very early age by our parents, who have known the thought-prison of conformity their whole lives. They want their children to blend in at all costs, to not stand out from the crowd, and never to challenge the social order. Fit in - or else. Your whole livelihood depends upon it.
This raises a central point in the whole discussion about the creativity of the individual, about self-inquiry: Krishnamurti's insights have never entered the mainstream and show no sign of doing so.
* * *
The reason is simple: his philosophy, so-called, has never been accepted into the lofty halls of academe, the U.S. Ivy League. Sure, there are some universities in America where it slots into the curricula in a marginal way. But his books are not accepted in the pre-eminent eight universities comprising the League, which are the world's breeding ground for all textbooks and subject knowledge. Thus, countless millions of graduates from across the world come out of these hallowed halls of learning with no understanding of him and what he said at all. This ignorance thus ripples through every level of society, as these graduates become the new leaders of society.
Of course, the reason he is not accepted into higher education (inter alia) is because he flatly rejected all the respected authorities in the field of thought and philosophical knowledge. That is, he did not take as a commencing standpoint the extensive writings of Descartes, the father of philosophy (to take the most prominent example) from which to build his discourse (he had, of course, never even read the books of Descartes). Thus the current leading professors in their various fields would never take him seriously (if they bothered to read him at all, which they don't), as he was and is not considered to be 'learned in any way. He is not, therefore, an authority, to whom they can defer for inspiration and the furtherance of their established ideas.
Hence he has been completely ignored, and there is no sign this situation will change.
(On a related note, the writer, in one of a number of tangles over the time with Wikipedia editors, was confronted with a responding casually dismissive statement on an article background Talk page that Krishnamurti was, to quote, "a historical curiosity" - thus in one brief phrase tossing out the entire edifice of self-inquiry and self-understanding put out by this man over 60 long years. The author of this comment had inevitably never even read him. Such is the avoidance of looking at the facts of oneself that exists at the very core of the human condition.)
Of course, the talks do not address the social problems of the mass public, for these are only individual problems writ large. Transformation begins and ends and is solely concerned with the individual - using this word advisedly, pointing to a single human being. It is each of us who are important, not society at large. Nevertheless, consider this excerpt, addressed to a Saanen gathering:
"... the difficulty is society is so strong, the temptations of the young person who wants to be with other young children who are already corrupt, who have already, you know, have accepted all the nonsense of society, and it becomes extremely difficult to bring up a child who will not yield to the tremendous weight of society."
(Fifth Question & Answer Meeting, in Saanen, July, 1980; ellipsis added)
Here it is: "The tremendous weight of society." Society, which is the outer environment, is the predominant factor in conditioning (there appears also to be unconscious, innate brain conditioning, but this is another issue). It applies not only to children of course but more especially to adults. For people who are married with children and jobs, with innumerable social and work commitments, this weight is a heavy burden indeed. Beyond money itself, which brings all the basic necessities of life - never mind the social status and seductive material goods and all the rest - the biggest threat in self-inquiry is to ongoing relationships. Wife, husband, friends, relatives, work colleagues, acquaintances and social networks. The potential loss of all these is reason enough for one to shrink from self-exploration - in fact to actively react against it, which is what is happening in the mind all the time. This crushing weight of the status quo is a major factor in the resistance of the mind to radical understanding.
* * *
It is bad enough that the talks systematically discard all the crutches that thought has built up over millennia. They are also a great negation: for he came not to build, but to destroy. Tear down, that is, in order to bring about the new. (In destruction lies creation; ending is the beginning of something new; only through complete negation can one come to the positive. In this sense the insights would bring about a transformation of human consciousness, ending once and for all the complete domination of thought over the mind and the brain.)
Here are some of the major lifelong psychological crutches that are systematically demolished:
* Security - there is no such thing in life, either physically or psychologically (there is in fact security, but not as we know it);
* The acquisition of psychological knowledge, over time (knowledge is always limited and only brings with it ignorance);
* Attachment to people, authorities and things (attachment brings dependence, preventing the energy of the mind from being aware of the fact);
* All psychological memories, good or bad (beyond essential practical memories for everyday living).
Any way you look at it, this is a radical approach at its worst. Moreover, one can voluntarily give up all these things and yet there are no guarantees about what comes next. Indeed, any motive involved at all in this renunciation/destruction heralds the immediate end of perception, insight, and clarity. The self is motive, all action with motive only perpetuates this self, hence you are back precisely where you started.
However, the most fundamental issue addressed in the talks is the ending of time. This means the destruction of all self-achievement. self-improvement, self-fulfillment, all goal-oriented living. Yet this is what everyone wants, for these lie at the very core of the desires that make up the self. Of becoming someone, someday. Of recognition: of fame, fortune and so-called freedom of choice.
It only gets worse. The total negation of time also means the end of all hope. To live entirely in the present, with no desires or wishes for the future; to forgo all gradualism, arrival, or result; that is, to deeply understand that the now is all that there is. (Of course, one has to take the future into account in all practical matters in daily living.) Indeed, this self-inquiry flatly denies any and all evolution of the psyche. The mind has turned the obvious outward evolution inward, hoping that over time the mind (hence society at large) will experience enlightenment; it simply will not happen that way. Insight is now. Most consider this to be such a revolutionary view they cannot even contemplate it, much less live it.
The truth is that this man's words are uncompromisingly radical, beyond doubt. He did not bring comfort, and he unequivocally brooked no guides or help or techniques for awareness. You have to stand alone, with no support, and with no self-identity. The mind must be completely silent. And so people have walked away from these insights, in their millions. Billions remain ignorant of his very existence, and hence of the pivotal issue of self-awareness. It will be a long time, if ever, before people will be willing to look at all this. That is, to look at the fact. It may first require a complete social collapse.
* * *
The evolved human mind today is predominantly sensation-seeking, intensely reactive, and consequently immensely petty. Take a look around. Such a mind does not have the energy to observe. Energy is wasted and dissipated in gadgets, in endless entertainments and distractions - the new opium of the people. The human race is asleep. Hence is it any wonder, after all these decades, that no-one has changed?
Yet, all this is not to suggest for one moment that self-transformation is impossible, which is what most people tacitly hold to be true. To the contrary, it is definitely possible.
After all, it's been done.
Daniel Marks
September, 2009
[Note: This essay has been accepted by the editorial board for publication in the upcoming Link, which would normally be issued early 2010. However, the Link editor has advised this writer that the magazine itself has been discontinued; a final edition will be issued worldwide some time in the 2010 (Northern) Spring]
See Also: Beliefs - A Look Inside the Mind
Site best viewed through Internet Explorer;
there are some page display issues with Chrome & Firefox
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Copyright © 2007-2010 Daniel Marks | beyondthemind.net. All Rights Reserved.
This website went online on November 22, 2007 and is being continually developed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-------------------------------------------------------
"There is only one fact: impermanence."
(Book of Life Daily Meditations: August 17, 2008)
"There is only one fact: impermanence."
(Book of Life Daily Meditations: August 17, 2008)
This site is, remarkably, the only one of its kind in the world. (By all means correct or refute this statement if you feel that it is wrong.) It is a setting out of one person's understanding of the major issues that arise from these penetrating pointers to a new way of living, to the inner workings of the mind. One reason for its inception was/is to bring about a contact with like-minded people throughout the world who can join an ongoing discussion into real change - and into the core issues that have produced this world the way it is.
It appears, however, that such a group of people globally does not exist, despite all the schools, the worldwide alumni, the foundations, the national committees, the major foundation websites, and the forums. At least, they have not surfaced in the 27 months this site has been in operation.
Why is that?
Daniel Marks
Melbourne, Australia
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
"To know, to be aware of the limitation of thinking is the beginning of intelligence."
(First Question & Answer Meeting at Brockwood Park: September, 1980)
(First Question & Answer Meeting at Brockwood Park: September, 1980)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Photo courtesy Wikimedia Commons; taken by Simon Koopmann, under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5
"There is no understanding without self-knowing; learning about the self is not accumulating knowledge about it; gathering of knowledge prevents learning; learning is not an additive process; learning is from moment to moment , as is understanding."
(The Notebook: London: Victor Gollancz, 1985, page 135)
(The Notebook: London: Victor Gollancz, 1985, page 135)
(Page last updated February 19, 2010,
Total Site Page Loads: > 150,000)
Total Site Page Loads: > 150,000)
 |
|
 |
February 17, 2008
A Summation of the central Themes of the Talks:
NOW OR NEVER ;
INTELLIGENCE ;
YOURSELF ;
TO LIVE WITH DEATH
- Compiled by Pradeep Apte
~~~~~~~~~
February, 2009
Two free e-books written by Dr Gordon Coates:
"Wanterfall: A practical approach to the
understanding and healing of the emotions of everyday life"
"Notes on Communication: A few thoughts about the way we interact with the people we meet"
Discussing verbal and non-verbal communication
~~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began February 5, 2008
| Listening without words - David Kolody
~~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began February 11, 2008
| The nature of silence and "serious intent" - Lyn McCormack
~~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began March 16, 2008
| What is communication? - Gerard Hughes
~~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began December 24, 2007
For this full dialogue up to May 4, 2008 See Archives & Archives 3 & Archives 4
| There is only ever one insight - Paul Dimmock
~~~~~~~~~
December, 2008
| What is the "Flowering of Goodness"? - Edgardo Francisco Mendoza
~~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began February 6, 2009
| 'No-one has the physical capacity to do it' - Mark A. Wood
~~~~~~~~~
| What is a Fact? - Joseph R. Cleary
March 14, 2009
~~~~~~~~~
| A Plea for a Healer for a Dying Son
February 5, 2009 - George Kinkela
A Summation of the central Themes of the Talks:
NOW OR NEVER ;
INTELLIGENCE ;
YOURSELF ;
TO LIVE WITH DEATH
- Compiled by Pradeep Apte
~~~~~~~~~
February, 2009
Two free e-books written by Dr Gordon Coates:
"Wanterfall: A practical approach to the
understanding and healing of the emotions of everyday life"
"Notes on Communication: A few thoughts about the way we interact with the people we meet"
Discussing verbal and non-verbal communication
~~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began February 5, 2008
| Listening without words - David Kolody
~~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began February 11, 2008
| The nature of silence and "serious intent" - Lyn McCormack
~~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began March 16, 2008
| What is communication? - Gerard Hughes
~~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began December 24, 2007
For this full dialogue up to May 4, 2008 See Archives & Archives 3 & Archives 4
| There is only ever one insight - Paul Dimmock
~~~~~~~~~
December, 2008
| What is the "Flowering of Goodness"? - Edgardo Francisco Mendoza
~~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began February 6, 2009
| 'No-one has the physical capacity to do it' - Mark A. Wood
~~~~~~~~~
| What is a Fact? - Joseph R. Cleary
March 14, 2009
~~~~~~~~~
| A Plea for a Healer for a Dying Son
February 5, 2009 - George Kinkela
The Crucial Issue of the Silent Mind
"Only when the mind is completely silent ... only then can the unknown come into being. The unknown is not something to be experienced by the mind; silence alone can be experienced, nothing but silence.
If the mind experiences anything but silence, it is merely projecting its own desires ... so long as the mind is not silent, so long as thought in any form, conscious or unconscious, is in movement, there can be no silence."
(The First and Last Freedom: pp. 207-208; The Link # 27, 'What is God?,' p27; ellipses added)
"Only when the mind is completely silent ... only then can the unknown come into being. The unknown is not something to be experienced by the mind; silence alone can be experienced, nothing but silence.
If the mind experiences anything but silence, it is merely projecting its own desires ... so long as the mind is not silent, so long as thought in any form, conscious or unconscious, is in movement, there can be no silence."
(The First and Last Freedom: pp. 207-208; The Link # 27, 'What is God?,' p27; ellipses added)
* * * * *
(Photo courtesy beachhunter.net)
