MNS Forums

MNS Forums (https://www.mrnice.nl/forum/)
-   3. The daily news (https://www.mrnice.nl/forum/3-daily-news/)
-   -   Philosophy (https://www.mrnice.nl/forum/3-daily-news/4642-philosophy.html)

Morphote 09-18-2010 05:46 PM

Philosophy
 
Quote:


Fourth Talk in Bombay

Ideas cannot bring about transformation in the world. Ideas only create further ideas in opposition or in acceptance, which inevitably create separate groups and bring about conflict and misery. Ideas cannot fundamentally change man. They do affect his superficial life, modifying his actions and his outward relationships, but ideas do not radically transform his being. He either opposes them or accepts them and therefore isolates himself - which only creates further antagonism and strife. Only the state of being can bring about fundamental transformation. This state of being is not an idea or a mere formulation, but it comes when thought as ideas ceases.

The mind cannot solve our human problems. The mind can invent theories, systems, ideas; it can bring about different patterns of action; it can organize existence; it can invent and formulate. It cannot solve the human problem because the mind itself is the problem, and not the problem which it projects outside itself. The mind itself has become the problem, and its fabrications further complicate life, bringing conflict and misery. The substitution of one idea for another, or the change of ideas does not transform the thinker.

So, the thinker himself has become the problem. Thought can be modified, changed; but the thinker remains apart. The thinker is the thought. They are not separate, they are a joint phenomenon and not separate processes. The thinker, by manipulating, modifying, changing thought according to circumstances, safeguards himself by this action. The picture remains; only the frame is changed, but the picture is the problem and not the frame. Thought is not the problem, but the thinker. This action of modification, change, of his thought, is a clever deception on the part of the thinker, leading him to illusion and endless misunderstanding and conflict. So, only when the thinker ceases is there being, and it is only the state of being that can bring about radical transformation.

It is important to understand this - that ideas cannot transform man; modification of thought cannot bring about radical revolution. There is radical revolution only when the thinker comes to an end. When do you have creative moments, a sense of joy and beauty? Only when the thinker is absent, when the thought process comes to an end. Then, in the interval between two thoughts, is creative joy. Being alone can bring about transformation.

How to bring about an end to the thinker is our next question, but that very question is erroneous. For, it is still the thinker that is putting this question, thereby giving himself continuity. Only when the thinker is aware of his activities - then only the thinker comes to an end. With great beauty or in moments of great sorrow, the thinker is temporarily driven away, and within that period there is that extraordinary sense of infinite happiness and bliss. It is this creative moment that brings about enduring revolution. It is this state of being, in which the thinker is not, that gives renewal. In this silence when the thinker is absent, does reality come into being.

Questioner: Can one love truth without loving man? Can one love man without loving truth? What comes first?

Krishnamurti: Love comes first. To love truth, you must know truth. To know truth is to deny truth. What is known is not truth. What is known is already encased in time and ceases to be truth. Truth is an eternal movement, and so cannot be measured in words or in time. It cannot be held in the fist. You cannot love something which you do not know. But truth is not to be found in books, in images, in temples. It is to be found in action, in living.

The very search for the unknown is love itself, and you cannot search for the unknowable away from relationship. You cannot search for reality, or for what you will, in isolation. It comes into being only in relationship, only when there is right relationship between man and man. So, the love of man is the search for reality. In relationship only, I am beginning to know myself.

Relationship is the mirror in which I am discovering myself, not my higher self, but the whole total process of myself. The higher and the lower selves are still within the field of the mind. Without understanding the mind, the thinker, it is not possible to go beyond thought and be open to the real. So, the understanding of myself in relationship is the beginning of life. I do not know how to love you - you in whose relationship I come into being. How can I search for the real and therefore love the real? I cannot exist without you. I cannot be in isolation. In our relationship, between you and me, I am beginning to know myself, and the understanding of myself is the beginning of wisdom.

The search for the real is love in relationship. To love you, I must know you; I must be receptive to all your moods, changes, and not merely enclose myself in my ambitions, pursuits, and desires. Without you, I cannot be. If I do not understand this relationship, how can there be love? Without love, there is no search.

To say that one must love truth, one must know truth. Do you know truth? Do you know what reality is? Do you know what God is? To know is to encase it in memory. What is known is within the field of time, and so it is no longer truth. How can a dry heart know truth? It cannot.

Truth is not something distant. It is near, only we do not know how to search it out. To be open to it you must understand relationship, not only with man but with nature, with ideas. To understand there must be open communion; there cannot be an isolating process, a withholding. To understand, there must be love, and without love there can be no understanding.

So it is not man or truth that comes first, but love. It comes into being only in understanding relationship. Truth cannot be invited. It must come to you. To search for truth is to deny truth. It comes into being when you are open, when you are completely without any barrier, when the mind is no longer creating. It comes into being when the mind is still. This stillness is not the product of compulsion, repetition, or concentration. To induce stillness is to seek a reward, and truth is not a reward. Where there is search for reward and the avoidance of pain, truth is not.

Questioner: You cannot build a new world in the way you are doing it now. It is obvious that the method of training laboriously a few chosen disciples will not make any difference to humanity. No doubt you will leave a mark like Krishna, Buddhist Christ, Mohammed and Gandhiji. But they have not changed the world; nor will you, unless you discover an entirely new way of approaching the problem.

Krishnamurti: A few do free themselves from confusion, conflict, and sorrow, but the vast majority are held in the net of time and sorrow. Is it possible for each one to break through this net and be free? If they are not free, then the wave of destruction and chaos will always overcome the living. The questioner says that the past teachers have not set the vast majority of mankind free. Since they are not free, the wave of destruction and the wave of life are always together. The questioner wants to know if there is an entirely new way of approaching this problem.

The wave of misery is stronger than the wave of happiness; and if each one does not awaken, then the wave of destruction will be more powerful, and so man is doomed to strife and pain. The problem is, is it not possible for each one to step out of this net of strife and pain, out of this net of time? Can you, who are here, free yourselves immediately from sorrow? If you can, you will be able to help another to transform himself immediately. If you think that you will become free from sorrow, then you will never be free, for the becoming is part of this destructive wave. Either you understand now or never. The now is ever in the present and the present has no time. The present is also the tomorrow. The postponement of the now until tomorrow is not the present; it is the invitation to the wave of destruction.

As long as you think in terms of becoming or being something tomorrow, then it sets up the process of conflict and pain. Confusion exists because you are thinking in terms of becoming. Can this becoming come to an end? It is only then that there can be a radical transformation. Becoming is a process of time and being is free of time. Where there is the psychological process of time, there must also be the wave of destruction and misery. In being, only, can there be transformation and not in becoming. In ending, only, there is renewal and not in continuity. So, can each one of us stop thinking in the process of becoming? I say you can do it. You can do it only when there is profound interest, when the thought process ceases entirely.

It is the thinker that is ever striving to become. He is the creator of time. It is only when the thinker ceases that there is being. Only when you give your mind and heart entirely to understanding, then only truth comes into being - which alone liberates you from sorrow. Then only is there a radical transformation. You can step on to the shore from the river at any point. The river of becoming is destruction and sorrow. The river of becoming ceases when you understand the time process. But, to understand, you must give your heart and mind.

Questioner: When I listen to you, all seems clear and new. At home the old, dull restlessness asserts itself. What is wrong with me?

Krishnamurti: Existence is challenge and response. The challenge is always new and the response ever the old. You met me yesterday, but since yesterday I have been modified; you have the picture of me of yesterday; so the 'me' is absorbed into the old. You do not meet me anew. You have only the picture of me of yesterday. So, your response to challenge is ever conditioned. While you are listening to me, you forget temporarily all your anxieties, your strife, and pain. You are listening quietly, trying to understand. But, when you go away from here, you are back into the old pattern of life or action. The new is always being absorbed into the old - the old habits, customs, memories, and ideas.

So, the problem is how to free thought from the old, from yesterday, so as to live continuously in the new. Why is it that we do not meet the new afresh every minute? Why is it that the old absorbs the new and modifies it? Is it not because the thinker is always the old? Is not your thought founded on the past? When it meets the new, the past is meeting the present, the now. The experience of yesterday, the memory which is dead, is meeting the new, which is alive. So, how is the mind to free itself, as the thinker? How is the psychological accumulation to come to an end? Without freedom from the residue of experience, there can be no meeting of the new. To free the thought process, which is of yesterday, is arduous, for beliefs, tradition, and education are a process of imitation, building up the store of memory. This memory is constantly responding. This response we call thinking. So, thought can never meet the new. Thought is the outcome of incomplete experience. It is only when experience is completed without leaving a mark - then only, thought as a response to memory ceases.

Love is not memory. Love is not a process of thought. It is a state of being. Love is eternally new. To bring about a revolution in thought and feeling, every thought and feeling should be thought out from moment to moment. Every response must be fully understood, not casually looked at and thrown aside. There is freedom from accumulating memory when every thought and feeling is thought out and felt out completely to the end. In this ending, there is renewal. There is an interval between this ending and the arising of another thought. In this space of silence, creativeness comes into being. If you will experiment with your thought and feeling, you will discover the practicality of this in your daily life. You will discover for your self this creative interval, which is not of any theory or of any religion - it is a direct experience. If you cling to that experience it ceases to be the new, the eternal. This creativeness is happiness.

A happy man is not concerned whether he is rich or poor, to what caste he belongs, or to what country. He has no leaders, no temples, and no gods of promise or fear, so he lives in peace and does not cause enmity. You are not creative in the sense explained by me already, so you are antisocial at the different levels of your consciousness, so you breed strife, confusion, and antagonism. To be practical and effective in your relationships, you must be happy. There can be no happiness if there is no ending. There can be no happiness in continuity, in becoming. In ending there is a rebirth, a newness, a joy, an ecstasy. In becoming there is decay, strife, and pain.

Questioner: You never mention God. Has he no place in your teaching?

Krishnamurti: You talk a great deal about God, don't you? Your books are full of it, you build churches and temples, you perform ceremonies. This pursuit of God indicates the shallowness of your search. Though you repeat the word God, your acts are not godly, are they? Though you worship God, your ways are ungodly. Though you mention God, you exploit others; and the richer you get, the more temples you build. So, you are only familiar with the word God. But, the word is not God, the word is not the thing.

To find the real, all the verbal utterances of the mind must cease. The image of reality must cease for reality to be. For reality to be, the image and the temple must cease. For the being of the unknown, the mind must put aside its content, the known. To pursue God you must know God. To know what you are pursuing is not to know God. The response which urges you to pursue is born of memory, so what you seek is already created. That which is created is not eternal, it is a product of the mind.

If there were no books, if there were no gurus, no rituals, and other forms of escape, all that you would know is sorrow and an occasional glimmer of happiness. Then you would want to know what is the cause of sorrow, then you would not escape through fanciful illusions. You may invent Gods and other things, but if you really wish to find out the whole process of suffering, then you will not escape, then you will have no addictions, then you will be faced with what is. Then only will you find out what reality is.

A man in sorrow cannot find reality. He must be free from sorrow to find it. That which is the unknown cannot be thought about. What you think about is already the known. You can think only of the known. Thought moves from the known to the known, from the secure to the secure, but what is known is not the real.

So when you think about God, you think about what is known, and the known is in the net of time. The real can only come into being when the mind ceases to create, when the mind is still. This stillness is not a product of compulsion, discipline, or self-hypnosis. There is silence only when all problems have ceased, like the pool that becomes quiet when the breezes stop. So, the mind becomes quiet when the agitator, the thinker, ceases. For the thinker to come to an end, all thoughts which he manufactures must be thought out. It is vain to erect a barrier against thought. Every thought must be felt out and understood. When the mind is still, the reality, the indescribable, comes into being. You cannot invite it. To invite it is to know it, and what is known is not the real. The mind must be simple, unburdened of ideation and belief. For reality to come into being, do not seek it, but understand the causes that agitate the mind and heart. When the creator of problems ceases, then there is tranquillity. In that tranquillity, the blessing of the real comes.

February 8, 1948
@MNS members

Share your philosophy.

kingkill 09-18-2010 05:53 PM

I am content.

Lejardinier 09-24-2010 12:20 AM

Very Nice Idea!

My friend is a Philosophy graduate and after years of long smokey late night discussions about, well, everything and nothing - you know how it is? He gave me a copy of Robert Pirsigs; Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (An Inquiry into Values; William Morrow Publishing Co; New York; 1979)

Never been a book reader, a sponge for information certainly, technical manuals, guidebooks, maps, magazines, newspapers, TV but not wordy books, this particular book on the other hand has changed the way I use my brain.

An Abbreviated Excerpt:

Phaedrus' Knife

"We take a handful of sand from the endless landscape around us and call that handful of sand the world.

Once we have the handful of sand, discrimination goes to work on it. This is the knife. We divide the sand into parts. This and that. Here and there. Black and while. Now and then.

To understand it's necessary to see that part of the landscape, inseparable from it, which must be understood, is a figure in the middle of it, sorting sand into piles.

To see the landscape without seeing this figure is not to see the landscape at all. To reject that part of the Buddha that attends to the analysis of motorcycles is to miss the Buddha entirely."


Sound familiar?

Read it again:

Nevils' Knife

"We take a handful of cannabis from the restricted landscape around us and call that handful of cannabis the world of cannabis.

Once we have the handful of cannabis, discrimination goes to work on it. This is the knife. We divide the cannabis into parts. This and that. Here and there. Sativa and Indica. Now and then.

To understand it's necessary to see that part of the landscape, inseparable from it, which must be understood, is a figure in the middle of it, sorting cannabis into piles.

To see the landscape without seeing this figure is not to see the landscape at all. To reject that part of the Buddha that attends to the analysis of cannabis is to miss the Buddha entirely."


I think that's it? Apply how you like? We are the figure?

When I started to look at life like that I realised how I really hadn't been living at all.

Heavy? I just find more answers creates more questions, ultimately we can't know everything, I've seen someone crack up going down that road and so has Pirsig,

My question is - <<<<<<< Argh! See my point?

I am NOT content

Peace

LeJ

Morphote 01-19-2011 05:48 PM

Truth cannot be given to you by somebody. You have to discover it;
and to discover, there must be a state of mind in which there is a direct
perception. There is no direct perception when there is a resistance, a
safeguard, a protection. Understanding comes through being aware of
what is. To know exactly what is, the real, the actual,
without interpreting it, without condemning or justifying it, is, surely,
the beginning of wisdom. It is only when we begin to interpret, to
translate according to our conditioning, according to our prejudice,
that we miss the truth.

-J. Krishnamurti

admini 01-21-2011 01:19 AM

Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and “Open Source”

The term “free software” is prone to misinterpretation: an unintended meaning, “software you can get for zero price,” fits the term just as well as the intended meaning, “software which gives the user certain freedoms.” We address this problem by publishing the definition of free software, and by saying “Think of ‘free speech,’ not ‘free beer.’” This is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem. An unambiguous and correct term would be better, if it didn't present other problems.

Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own. We've looked at many that people have suggested, but none is so clearly “right” that switching to it would be a good idea. (For instance, in some contexts the French and Spanish word “libre” works well, but people in India do not recognize it at all.) Every proposed replacement for “free software” has some kind of semantic problem—and this includes “open source software.”

The official definition of “open source software” (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it is a little looser in some respects, so the open source people have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive. Also, they judge solely by the license of the source code, whereas our criterion also considers whether a device will let you run your modified version of the program. Nonetheless, their definition agrees with our definition in most cases.

However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source.

Since that obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term. According to writer Neal Stephenson, “Linux is ‘open source’ software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.” I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the “official” definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition: “Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.”

The New York Times has run an article that stretches the meaning of the term to refer to user beta testing—letting a few users try an early version and give confidential feedback—which proprietary software developers have practiced for decades.

Open source supporters try to deal with this by pointing to their official definition, but that corrective approach is less effective for them than it is for us. The term “free software” has two natural meanings, one of which is the intended meaning, so a person who has grasped the idea of “free speech, not free beer” will not get it wrong again. But the term “open source” has only one natural meaning, which is different from the meaning its supporters intend. So there is no succinct way to explain and justify its official definition. That makes for worse confusion.

Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another misunderstanding that “free software” means “GPL-covered software.” These are both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses.

The term “open source” has been further stretched by its application to other activities, such as government, education, and science, where there is no such thing as source code, and where criteria for software licensing are simply not pertinent. The only thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite people to participate. They stretch the term so far that it only means “participatory”.

Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)

.

admini 01-21-2011 01:22 AM

Our work is driven by a belief that software should be free and accessible to all.

We believe that every computer user:
  • Should have the freedom to download, run, copy, distribute, study, share, change and improve their software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees.
  • Should be able to use their software in the language of their choice.
  • Should be able to use all software regardless of disability.

Our philosophy is reflected in the software we produce, the way we distribute it and our licensing terms, too - Ubuntu Licence Policy.
Install Ubuntu and you can rest assured that all our software meets these ideals. Plus, we are continually working to ensure that every piece of software you could possibly need is available under a licence that gives you those freedoms.


Free software

Ubuntu software is free. Always was, always will be. Free software gives everyone the freedom to use it however they want and share with whoever they like. This freedom has huge benefits. At one end of the spectrum it enables the Ubuntu community to grow and share its collective experience and expertise to continually improve all things Ubuntu. At the other, we are able to give access to essential software for those who couldn’t otherwise afford it – an advantage that’s keenly felt by individuals and organisations all over the world.
Quoting the Free Software Foundation's, 'What is Free Software,' the freedoms at the core of free software are defined as:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
The freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to your needs.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others.
The freedom to improve the program and release your improvements to the public, so that everyone benefits.


Open source

Open source is collective power in action. The power of a worldwide community of highly skilled experts that build, share and improve the very latest software together - then make it available to everyone.
The term open source was coined in 1998 to remove the ambiguity in the English word 'free' and it continues to enjoy growing success and wide recognition. Although some people regard ‘free’ and ‘open source' as competing movements with different ends, we do not. Ubuntu proudly includes members who identify with both.

Our philosophy | Ubuntu

.

admini 01-21-2011 01:44 AM

The Open Source Definition (Annotated)
Version 1.9

The indented, italicized sections below appear as annotations to the Open Source Definition (OSD) and are not a part of the OSD. A plain version of the OSD without annotations can be found here.

Introduction
Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:

1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

Rationale: By constraining the license to require free redistribution, we eliminate the temptation to throw away many long-term gains in order to make a few short-term sales dollars. If we didn't do this, there would be lots of pressure for cooperators to defect.

2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

Rationale: We require access to un-obfuscated source code because you can't evolve programs without modifying them. Since our purpose is to make evolution easy, we require that modification be made easy.

3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

Rationale: The mere ability to read source isn't enough to support independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection. For rapid evolution to happen, people need to be able to experiment with and redistribute modifications.

4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.

Rationale: Encouraging lots of improvement is a good thing, but users have a right to know who is responsible for the software they are using. Authors and maintainers have reciprocal right to know what they're being asked to support and protect their reputations.

Accordingly, an open-source license must guarantee that source be readily available, but may require that it be distributed as pristine base sources plus patches. In this way, "unofficial" changes can be made available but readily distinguished from the base source.

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

Rationale: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open sources. Therefore we forbid any open-source license from locking anybody out of the process.

Some countries, including the United States, have export restrictions for certain types of software. An OSD-conformant license may warn licensees of applicable restrictions and remind them that they are obliged to obey the law; however, it may not incorporate such restrictions itself.

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.

7. Distribution of License
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.

Rationale: This clause is intended to forbid closing up software by indirect means such as requiring a non-disclosure agreement.

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.

Rationale: This clause forecloses yet another class of license traps.

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

Rationale: Distributors of open-source software have the right to make their own choices about their own software.

Yes, the GPL v2 and v3 are conformant with this requirement. Software linked with GPLed libraries only inherits the GPL if it forms a single work, not any software with which they are merely distributed.

10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.

Rationale: This provision is aimed specifically at licenses which require an explicit gesture of assent in order to establish a contract between licensor and licensee. Provisions mandating so-called "click-wrap" may conflict with important methods of software distribution such as FTP download, CD-ROM anthologies, and web mirroring; such provisions may also hinder code re-use. Conformant licenses must allow for the possibility that (a) redistribution of the software will take place over non-Web channels that do not support click-wrapping of the download, and that (b) the covered code (or re-used portions of covered code) may run in a non-GUI environment that cannot support popup dialogues.

The Open Source Definition (Annotated) | Open Source Initiative

.

joshuahazen 01-21-2011 02:07 AM

"Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you. The rest is just commentary"--Maimonides

minarvi 01-21-2011 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingkill (Post 63549)
I am content.

Then you're very fortunate kingkill.

If you want to be happy first seek contentment, then you will be happy....... minarvi.

Morphote 01-21-2011 06:06 PM

http://www.telesalesmagic.com/wp-con...g_skills_2.jpg

To communicate with one another, even if we know each other very
well, is extremely difficult. I may use words that may have to you a
significance different from mine. Understanding comes when we, you
and I, meet on the same level at the same time. That happens only
when there is real affection among people, between husband and wife,
between intimate friends. That is real communion. Instantaneous
understanding comes when we meet on the same level at the same time.

It is very difficult to commune with one another easily, effectively, and
with definitive action. I am using words which are simple, which are not
technical, because I do not think that any technical type of expression
is going to help us solve our difficult problems; so I am not going to use
any technical terms, either of psychology or of science. I have not read
any books on psychology or any religious books, fortunately. I would like
to convey, by the very simple words which we use in our daily life, a
deeper significance; but that is very difficult if you do not know how to
listen.

There is an art of listening. To be able really to listen, one should abandon
or put aside all prejudices, pre-formulations and daily activities. When you
are in a receptive state of mind, things can be easily understood; you are
listening when your real attention is given to something. But unfortunately
most of us listen through a screen of resistance. We are screened with
prejudices, whether religious or spiritual, psychological or scientific; or with
our daily worries, desires and fears. And with these for a screen, we listen.
Therefor, we listen really to our own noise, to our own sound, not to what
is being said. It is extremely difficult to put aside our training, our prejudices,
our inclination, our resistance, and, reaching beyond the verbal expression,
to listen so that we understand instantaneously. That is going to be one
of our difficulties.

-J. Krishnamurti


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
All rights reserved, MR NICE SEEDBANK, NL