The Practice of the Presence

Brother Lawrence related that we should establish ourselves in a sense of God's Presence by continually conversing with Him. It was a shameful thing to quit His conversation to think of trifles and fooleries. We should feed and nourish our souls with high notions of God which would yield us great joy in being devoted to Him.

He said we ought to quicken and enliven our faith. It was lamentable we had so little. Instead of taking faith for the rule of their conduct, men amused themselves with trivial devotions which changed daily. He said that faith was sufficient to bring us to a high degree of perfection. We ought to give ourselves up to God with regard both to things temporal and spiritual and seek our satisfaction only in the fulfilling of His will. Whether God led us by suffering or by consolation all would be equal to a soul truly resigned.

Extract yourself, if you can, from the notion that faith as used here is a species of belief, subject to persuasion of argument and evidence. We live in a world of practices, and all our activity is founded on trust. Imagine maybe, how a pole-vaulter is enlivened by faith in his pole.

The idea of giving oneself up to an activity should be familiar enough; the state of mind when there is a focus on something such that one becomes un-self-conscious. There is an immediate paradox here for some, that mindfulness is the opposite of un-self-consciousness. I'll just say for now that mindfulness is a bit misnamed, and well done, it more approaches 'mind-emptiness'.

The last sentence here is a simple response to the problem of suffering from one who has suffered. No argument to satisfy a philosopher, but an observation that the attempt to avoid and escape extends the suffering beyond its natural limits. "A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once." Shakespeare, Julius Caesar.

Such was my beginning. Yet I must tell you that for the first ten years I suffered a great deal. During this time I fell often, and rose again presently. It seemed to me that all creatures, reason, and God Himself were against me and faith alone for me.

…

by rising after my falls, and by frequently renewed acts of faith and love, I am come to a state wherein it would be as difficult for me not to think of God as it was at first to accustom myself to it.

:grimace: I guess the ten thousand hour rule applies, but at least the practice sticks.

J. Krishnamurti:But if you truly understood the significance of the present, then you would not turn to any authority whatsoever, but being intelligent, actively conscious, you would be able to adjust yourself constantly to the movement of life.

So is this the key to ending chaos and suffering, to truly understand the significance of the present?

I think that the significance of the present is as the division between past and future. But when Moses asked God who are you, in Exodus, God said "I am that I am" (depending on translation). This indicates that there is a sort of "being" involved with the present. I wonder if these two notions of present are compatible, being at the present in the sense of "I am", and the present as a division between future and past.

Reply to unenlightened :up: Glad there's someone else on this forum who contemplates these teachings.

Reply to unenlightened
Nice thread. My first thoughts are that this is about practice informed by contemplation. That it is a good starting point for this practice. That the two systems, the Hindu and the catholic are compatible, I know this through personal experience. But that the aspirant can only go as far as his/her body is capable at their stage of development. Or that it is only for some people who are that way inclined.

Brother Lawrence related that we should establish ourselves in a sense of God's Presence by continually conversing with Him

Or, we could establish ourselves in God's presence by shutting up and listening. What some people call God is what comes in to view when we stop talking in our heads, that is, thinking. It's always been there, whatever one wishes to call it, but we typically don't notice because our attention is focused elsewhere. On symbols which point to reality. Instead of on reality itself.

Does God exist? Certainly God exists in books and theories, but that is not what we usually mean by the question. What we usually are asking is, does God exist in the real world? But then we typically don't look in the real world, but instead look in books and theories.

BOB: "Hey Phil, are my shoes in my closet?"

PHIL: "I dunno Bob, I'll go look in the garage to find out."

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So is this the key to ending chaos and suffering, to truly understand the significance of the present?

Certainly many would say so. Krishnamurti obviously does. The Buddhists seem to, best I can tell, a very loose and considerably ignorant summary of their position.

His Glorious Flatulence Sri Baba Hippyhead, perhaps the greatest Buddhist sage of all time according to himself, fake news rumors, and his pet retarded squirrel, rudely belches a different message.

1) Understanding is made of thought.

2) Thought is the source of suffering.

So what then? Jesus suggested "Die to be reborn". While Baba Hippyhead makes no claim to Christian theology expertise, he thinks that might mean...

Die to the symbolic, and be reborn in to the real.

A temporary psychological death, perhaps revealing that which all symbols point to.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I wonder if these two notions of present are compatible, being at the present in the sense of "I am", and the present as a division between future and past.

If I put it negatively, psychologically, I might say that the past is trauma, the present is pain, and the future is fear. Or in more neutral terms, the past is knowledge, the present is sensation, and the future is imagination. I would rather view the present as the container of past and future than the divider. The past as memory and record, the future as plan and intention, and habit the thread that joins them.

Quoting praxis

I guess the ten thousand hour rule applies, but at least the practice sticks.

Not the best advert I've ever seen, but better than "Hey chaps why not get crucified like me?" With music they give you the results of the 10k hours first and deemphasise the excruciating school orchestra bit.

But I want to tease out the idea of practice a bit.

Quoting Punshhh

But that the aspirant can only go as far as his/her body is capable at their stage of development. Or that it is only for some people who are that way inclined.

As to the limits of the body, this is no problem. One can do yoga in a wheelchair, as Mrs un's teacher exemplifies. If one is stiff or weak, one's stretches and poses will be limited, but there need be no comparison as between teacher and student or between practice and performance. Life is for all, and there is no elite, no aspiration, in this practice. What is important here is to notice how one seeks to imagine the result, rather than practice the practice.

And that effort of critical self-awareness is the practice. Has anyone read Aldous Huxley's utopian novel "Island"? The wild parrots on the island are taught to recite "Here and now boys, here and now" just in case the mind should wander. It is my practice to go for a walk every day. I do not expect or intend to get better at walking.

It seems to me apparent that we're caught in chaos and suffering, and have been for a very long time. So, understanding that we are doesn't strike me as much of an insight. If by understanding that we will "discover how to live intelligently and supremely" then we've been living intelligently and supremely for quite some time now.

Krishnamurti was thought to be, and groomed to be, "The World Teacher" by proponents of Theosophy. Though he distanced himself from Theosophy later in his life, it seems he never denied what they said he was. He certainly kept teaching and had devoted followers, who took care of him very well, though he claimed he wanted no followers. It may be hard not to be the The World Teacher when you're told you are from a young age.

I await reprimand for pedantry and cynicism and other even more reprehensible traits.

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

Though he distanced himself from Theosophy later in his life

Early twenties, upon coming to adulthood.

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

it seems he never denied what they said he was

He repeatedly denied it over and over again throughout his life, but in an authoritative voice, which admittedly muddled the denial a bit.

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

I await reprimand for pedantry and cynicism and other even more reprehensible traits.

Ha, ha! Consider yourself spanked.

Krishnamurti was an intelligent and articulate human being. Emphasis on human being. He had an affair with his best friend's wife and then blamed his friend's distress on his friend's lack of maturity. What could possibly be more lame?? But still, he was intelligent and articulate.

About ten years ago I happened to chat online with the lead teacher at the Krishnamurti school in California. He told me Krishnamurti was the closest thing to a god we'd ever see. I listened patiently, while quietly banging my head on the monitor. Human beings, all of us, human beings.

Reply to Ciceronianus the White

The Cloud of Unknowing, prologue:Fleshly janglers, open praisers and blamers of themselves or of any other, tellers of trifles, ronners and tattlers of tales, and all manner of pinchers, cared I never that they saw this book. For mine intent was never to write such thing unto them, and therefore I would that they meddle not therewith; neither they, nor any of these curious, lettered, or unlearned men. Yea, although that they be full good men of active living, yet this matter accordeth nothing to them. But if it be to those men, the which although they stand in activity by outward form of living, nevertheless yet by inward stirring after the privy spirit of God, whose dooms be hid, they be full graciously disposed, not continually as it is proper to very contemplatives, but now and then to be perceivers in the highest point of this contemplative act; if such men might see it, they should by the grace of God be greatly comforted thereby.

Quoting Hippyhead

1) Understanding is made of thought.

2) Thought is the source of suffering.

Haven't we discussed this already? If not, you should take a good look at your proposed causal order. Clearly, suffering is prior to thought, as animals suffer before they learn how to think. So if one is the source of the other, suffering ought to be considered as the source of thought.

Quoting unenlightened

If I put it negatively, psychologically, I might say that the past is trauma, the present is pain, and the future is fear. Or in more neutral terms, the past is knowledge, the present is sensation, and the future is imagination. I would rather view the present as the container of past and future than the divider. The past as memory and record, the future as plan and intention, and habit the thread that joins them.

I generally agree with the description here, but I don't see how the present can contain the past and future, so I wouldn't agree with calling it the container of these. Instead of saying the past is knowledge and the future is imagination, I'd say that we relate to the past through knowledge, and we relate to the future through imagination, leaving a real past, and a real future which are independent of my relationship to them. This makes my presence more like something contained by the past and future, rather than the container of them, keeping me humble.

On closer examination though, it seems like I'm only contained, or constrained by the past. Imagination, plan and intention, which is how I relate to the future, allows me some degree of freedom from that containment. The degree of freedom which I actually achieve is somewhat dependent on how I apprehend my habits, which is how I relate to the present. I can see my habits as the past constraining me to act in a particular way. But, on the other hand, I can see the future as open possibilities, and I can shape my habits toward obtaining my goals. The former is "practice" in the general sense of the word, carrying out an action in an habitual way. The latter is "practice" in a stricter sense of the word, meaning to develop a skill.

Reply to unenlightened

"Ronner" is new to me. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I see it's also used to refer to a lover of Ronald McDonald, but assume that wasn't the intended use in what you quote (thought it would be wonderful if it was).

Quoting Hippyhead

He repeatedly denied it over and over again throughout his life, but in an authoritative voice, which admittedly muddled the denial a bit.

Did he? I stand corrected.

Reply to unenlightened

Life is for all, and there is no elite, no aspiration, in this practice. What is important here is to notice how one seeks to imagine the result, rather than practice the practice.

Quite, I was, perhaps clumsily, saying that of those who seek Nirvana, only those who are ready will realise it. Also that some folk can't be doing with such practice.

Reply to Ciceronianus the White

If by understanding that we will "discover how to live intelligently and supremely" then we've been living intelligently and supremely for quite some time now.

Surely the goal is, by hook, or by crook, to live a rounded, benevolent, congenial life, enhanced with at least a little service to thy fellow man. For humanity as a whole, to improve the human world and experience until some kind of heaven on Earth is realised.

As for Krishnamurti, I agree, along with Theosophy in general. I am more concerned with the message itself, rather than the messenger.

Quoting unenlightened

I guess the ten thousand hour rule applies, but at least the practice sticks.
— praxis

Not the best advert I've ever seen, but better than "Hey chaps why not get crucified like me?" With music they give you the results of the 10k hours first and deemphasise the excruciating school orchestra bit.

But I want to tease out the idea of practice a bit.

There's an aspect similar to philosophical stoicisms dichotomy of control (or perhaps essentially identical to older forms of stoicism?) but with a faith-based radical acceptance, basically living the serenity prayer rather than praying it.

At base (neurological) level I think it amounts to sustained suppression of the DMN, and given enough practice, pathways may be enforced enough to establish a trait rather than a state.

J. Krishnamurti:real criticism is required; not acceptance

And then...

The intention seems to be bring about, if my reading is anywhere near the mark, change, not just that but positive change.

To be sure, this attitude and what proceeds from it (positive change), has precedence and, on balance, a good track record and history attests to that. The problem, if I may say so, is that the world is missing a critical ingredient to get this philosophy off the ground viz. the philosopher's holy grail, wisdom that would enable real, lasting, transformation toward the good, the better, and last but not the least, the best. Sans wisdom, it's all going to be knee-jerk reactions and we'll be like blindfolded blind men shooting in the dark with blanks for bullets.

I guess everybody has to start somewhere.

Reply to praxis You may be able to educate me further, but wiki seems to think that there is reduced and increased activation.

wiki:Meditation – Structural changes in areas of the DMN such as the temporoparietal junction, posterior cingulate cortex, and precuneus have been found in meditation practitioners.[45] There is reduced activation and reduced functional connectivity of the DMN in long-term practitioners.[45] Various forms of nondirective meditation, including Transcendental Meditation[46] and Acem Meditation,[47] have been found to activate the DMN.

It's early days for neurology, and spiritual practice does not necessarily translate straightforwardly into neurological effects, even if one is a determined physicalist.

Reply to Ciceronianus the White The handy glossary with the link offered above gives the meaning "Ronner - A gossip or tale-bearer."

Quoting TheMadFool

The intention seems to be bring about, if my reading is anywhere near the mark, change, not just that but positive change.

Yes. Krishnamurti at least, rejects authority, including his own, in favour of a scientific approach. Do it for yourself, and find out for yourself. Don't rely on reports from anyone else. But added to this is the rejection of the thinking brain as the agent of transformation, and this latter is very much common ground with the Christian mystics cited above. Thus...

Cloud, 82: For whoso heareth this work either be read or spoken of, and weeneth that it may, or should, be come to by travail in their wits, and therefore they sit and seek in their wits how that it may be, and in this curiosity they travail their imagination peradventure against the course of nature, and they feign a manner of working the which is neither bodily nor ghostly—truly this man, whatsoever he be, is perilously deceived.

Quoting unenlightened

Yes. Krishnamurti at least, rejects authority, including his own, in favour of a scientific approach. Do it for yourself, and find out for yourself. Don't rely on reports from anyone else. But added to this is the rejection of the thinking brain as the agent of transformation, and this latter is very much common ground with the Christian mystics cited above. Thus...

For whoso heareth this work either be read or spoken of, and weeneth that it may, or should, be come to by travail in their wits, and therefore they sit and seek in their wits how that it may be, and in this curiosity they travail their imagination peradventure against the course of nature, and they feign a manner of working the which is neither bodily nor ghostly—truly this man, whatsoever he be, is perilously deceived.
— Cloud, 82

Krishnamurti seems to be, dare I say, under some misconception then. First he asks for real criticism which, to my reckoning, seems to recommend rational analysis and then, according to you, he, with the same breath, claims that's not the what he meant. What does he mean, I wonder? :chin:

Where does mysticism come in, in this?

Any ideas?

Quoting TheMadFool

Krishnamurti seems to be, dare I say, under some misconception then.

Possibly. I should have known better than to quote him at the top. Ok, Krishnamurti was a charlatan or an idiot or a lunatic. Now go read the God stuff chaps!

PTPG - second conversation:He said that useless thoughts spoil all - that the mischief began there. We ought to reject them as soon as we perceived their impertinence and return to our communion with God. In the beginning he had often passed his time appointed for prayer in rejecting wandering thoughts and falling right back into them. He could never regulate his devotion by certain methods as some do. Nevertheless, at first he had meditated for some time, but afterwards that went off in a manner that he could give no account of. Brother Lawrence emphasized that all bodily mortifications and other exercises are useless unless they serve to arrive at the union with God by love. He had well considered this. He found that the shortest way to go straight to God was by a continual exercise of love and doing all things for His sake.

Cloud 84:And ween not, for I call it a darkness or a cloud, that it be any cloud congealed of the humours that flee in the air, nor yet any darkness such as is in thine house on nights when the candle is out. For such a darkness and such a cloud mayest thou imagine with curiosity of wit, for to bear before thine eyes in the lightest day of summer: and also contrariwise in the darkest night of winter, thou mayest imagine a clear shining light. Let be such falsehood. I mean not thus. For when I say darkness, I mean a lacking of knowing: as all that thing that thou knowest not, or else that thou hast forgotten, it is dark to thee; for thou seest it not with thy ghostly eye. And for this reason it is not called a cloud of the air, but a cloud of unknowing, that is betwixt thee and thy God.

Quoting unenlightened

Possibly. I should have known better than to quote him at the top. Ok, Krishnamurti was a charlatan or an idiot or a lunatic. Now go read the God stuff chaps!

What I've discovered is this: suffering pushes, shoves in fact, people with greater force toward god than the happiness pulls, draws, us toward god. The power of happiness to attract us to god is, sadly, less than the power of suffering to repel us toward Him. Why do you think this is?

More intriguingly, is suffering the attractor and happiness the repulsor?

So I will repeat what has been quoted and further indicated in all three cases as a direct and solemn warning that to attempt to understand anything of this with thought alone is worse than useless, positively injurious. If you do not sense the significance of the topic, leave it alone for it will only confuse you.

Quoting TheMadFool

Why do you think this is?

I don't.

Quoting unenlightened

So I will repeat what has been quoted and further indicated in all three cases as a direct and solemn warning that to attempt to understand anything of this with thought alone is worse than useless, positively injurious. If you do not sense the significance of the topic, leave it alone for it will only confuse you.

Did you read my post?

Quoting unenlightened

I don't.

Why not? Is it because you think it's pointless or because it's a tough nut to crack? In both cases, explain yourself if I may be so bold as to ask.

Quoting TheMadFool

Why not? Is it because you think it's pointless or because it's a tough nut to crack?

PTPG:Brother Lawrence said the greatest pains or pleasures of this world were not to be compared with what he had experienced of both kinds in a spiritual state. As a result he feared nothing, desiring only one thing of God - that he might not offend Him. He said he carried no guilt. "When I fail in my duty, I readily acknowledge it, saying, I am used to do so. I shall never do otherwise if I am left to myself. If I fail not, then I give God thanks acknowledging that it comes from Him."

I don't believe you have discovered for yourself that suffering pushes you towards God. I think you are repeating some thing you have picked up from the cinema or somewhere. I'm not interested in that, any more than you are interested in engaging with the texts that form and inform the topic of this thread.

This moral surrender should be familiar to anyone who knows of the 12 step program for recovering from addiction. and it goes together with the focus on the present - "one day at a time".

PTPG:"When I fail in my duty, I readily acknowledge it, saying, I am used to do so. I shall never do otherwise if I am left to myself. If I fail not, then I give God thanks acknowledging that it comes from Him"

I understand and can relate to that but isn't it having it both ways. If both the failure and success in one's duty is acceptable then, as some would say, anything goes, right?

Quoting unenlightened

I don't believe you have discovered for yourself that suffering pushes you towards God.

Pew Research

One theory is that people naturally become more religious as they age (more suffering) and approach their own mortality.

Reply to unenlightenedJust so you know, I'm very drawn to mysticism and the like and, to my regret, it's been extremely unproductive. That said, it wasn't like I put my back into it so I can't say with full conviction that all mystical ventures, without exception, are hopeless dead ends in and of themselves.

My relationship with the mystical was so long ago that I can't even recall a single experience that left me wanting more as I suppose I did. Perhaps that's what it's all about, eh? The title "The cloud of unknowing" gives off a sense of the mind-emptiness you mentioned earlier and that explains my inability to recollect my mystical mind-states.

Reply to TheMadFool
I am drawn to mystical ideas. I think it could be productive for creating fantastic art and literature.
I love the art of Alex Grey and in a many respects William Blake and Y B Yeats were mystics.

Perhaps I am an idle dreamer, and I am not exactly the most successful worldly person, but I do believe that the mystic and visionary perspectives should not be lost in the increasingly drudgery of materialism. I think mysticism is a the atrophied tail of philosophy.

Quoting Jack Cummins

I think mysticism is a the atrophied tail of philosophy.

Nice!

Care to share? Your experiences?

I think I remember something now. Even back then, when I was teenager-20's, I was especially drawn to what I can only describe as the brick wall - the wall that you walk/run into and get knocked out cold. That sudden analysis paralysis, the state of utter confusion, the incomprehensibility, the befuddlement of it all, that's what attracted me to mysticism.

These days it's the exact opposite. I dread and loathe confusion of any sort and get all worked up when I can't wrap my head around something I'm working on. I miss the old days when I enjoyed being confused :sad:

Quoting unenlightened

?Ciceronianus the White The handy glossary with the link offered above gives the meaning "Ronner - A gossip or tale-bearer."

I found something defining it as a verb--to mumble or grumble.

I think there are matters that can only be poorly expressed or communicated through language, except in the case of certain poetry. Some things must be shown, or felt, or evoked. That's a misfortune. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why initiates in the ancient mysteries such as the Eleusinian mysteries didn't reveal what they felt and understood to the uninitiated--they couldn't, not really. And yet Plato and others (e.g. Cicero) thought they taught us to want to live nobly.

Reply to TheMadFool I think that I may have replied to you in another thread, saying about premonitions, but that was why I wrote the Towee of Babel thread even if it was an off beat metaphor.

I have experienced a lot of premonitions and synchronisities and not all are bad. But all in all, I do feel that I access higher states of consciousness at times, even by psychedelic music that many would hate.

I am not the most conventional and could even be deemed as taking part in what Rudolph Otto classed as profane as opposed to sacred mysticism. I do look to shamanic possibilities and have found meaningful in the writings of Carlos Castenada, even if the factual basis is open to question.

I love the writings of the transpersonal psychologists. I will probably never make it in the world of philosophy, even on this site, but I am an explorer of consciousness and its expansion and I deem this to be part of philosophy but I am sure that others may see this as futile and beyond the scope of the philosophers but I beg to differ.

Quoting unenlightened

I come at this with the expertise of a non-practitioner and mere observer and comparer of texts and traditions - expecting this to be mainly an exercise in futility.

I am also a non-practitioner of Buddhist Meditation. But I think the practice of present-mindedness is a good thing, especially for those who are not normally inclined to introspection. Here's some links to a couple of recent converts --- not to Buddhism, but to methodical Introspection. They found feckless meditation to be practical and useful. :smile:


Buddhist Critic : https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/a-buddhism-critic-goes-on-a-silent-buddhist-retreat/

Why Buddhism is Enlightening : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page51.html

Quoting Jack Cummins

I am an explorer of consciousness

That's all I need to hear. Good luck! Explorer!

PTPG2nd letter:Not finding my manner of life described in books, although I have no problem with that, yet, for reassurance, I would appreciate your thoughts about it.

I likewise bring my thoughts to you, and appreciate your thoughts - most of them. There is a danger in the solitary life of entering a fugue of self aggrandisement and thinking one is achieving something.

For the first years, I commonly employed myself during the time set apart for devotion with thoughts of death, judgment, hell, heaven, and my sins. Thus I continued some years applying my mind carefully the rest of the day, and even in the midst of my work, to the presence of God, whom I considered always as with me, often as in my heart.

At length I began to do the same thing during my set time of prayer, which gave me joy and consolation. This practice produced in me so high an esteem for God that faith alone was enough to assure me.

Such was my beginning. Yet I must tell you that for the first ten years I suffered a great deal. During this time I fell often, and rose again presently. It seemed to me that all creatures, reason, and God Himself were against me and faith alone for me.

The apprehension that I was not devoted to God as I wished to be, my past sins always present to my mind, and the great unmerited favors which God did me, were the source of my sufferings and feelings of unworthiness. I was sometimes troubled with thoughts that to believe I had received such favors was an effect of my imagination, which pretended to be so soon where others arrived with great difficulty. At other times I believed that it was a willful delusion and that there really was no hope for me.

Finally, I considered the prospect of spending the rest of my days in these troubles. I discovered this did not diminish the trust I had in God at all. In fact, it only served to increase my faith. It then seemed that, all at once, I found myself changed. My soul, which, until that time was in trouble, felt a profound inward peace, as if she were in her center and place of rest.

Ten years of a daily discipline of negative thought. According to Krishnamurti, (I hope he will forgive me for mangling his teachings a little) the self is a centre of thought produced by a process of identification that becomes "sacred"- the all important centre around which all thought (and hence all life) is organised. And this self-identity is the source of all the mischief and all the unnecessary suffering of the world.

So one can see in the case of Brother Lawrence, how the notion of God functions in the mind of the ascetic to displace the self as the centre of life. It is particularly important that the self realises that it can do nothing to 'save' or extinguish, or transform itself. The thinker is a central thought that is sustained by a continuous circular consideration of itself, and every action (thought) of the thinker necessarily sustains and continues it.

Finally, the brother reaches the point where he is more than content to spend his whole life in the process without reaching an end, and that is the necessary condition for the ending of the self. Enlightenment can be obtained, but you or I (as centres of thought) cannot possibly attain it.

Quoting unenlightened

Yes. Krishnamurti at least, rejects authority, including his own, in favour of a scientific approach

Yes, he was very explicit about that. However, he was the one sitting on stage, and he spoke in a quite authoritative manner. The message was undermined a bit by the presentation. Some people got confused by his regal bearing.

It might have helped if JK had sprinkled his serious thoughtful talks with the occasional ridiculous fart joke. Some folks appear to have needed the authority bubble they were constructing to be punctured in a decisive manner. That said JK was in a sense a businessman, in that he made his living as a speaker/writer/philosopher. Fart jokes wouldn't be helpful to such business agendas.

Quoting Hippyhead

Fart jokes wouldn't be helpful to such business agendas.

Jokes go a long way in the business agenda. Ask the author of "Up your bottom line".

Quoting unenlightened

And this self-identity is the source of all the mischief and all the unnecessary suffering of the world.

In my view, the self identity is a product of the real bottom line source, the medium which the self identity is made of. As evidence, this self identity is generated in every person ever born, pointing to a source which is more fundamental than culture.

Many approaches, including JK's, attempt to address the self identity at the level of the content of thought, by editing our ideas about self identity. We should detach, we should observe, it means this it means that, it's good, it's bad etc.

But what happens? Typically all that happens by this process is that the person's self identity changes from something like "I am a smart person" or "I am a sad person" to something like "I am a holy person". Some see "holy" as being a more appealing identity than smart or sad, so such a process can be popular.

What's happening here is that the true source, thought itself, is re-generating the self identity to match whatever forms are suggested by one's chosen culture. So if I choose to be a JK reader, thought says, "Ok, we will rebrand you as a supposedly insightful person". If I like that image I keep reading JK. If I prefer some other self image, I read something else.

The reason that this circus goes endlessly on and on is that the real source of "all the mischief and all the unnecessary suffering" has not been correctly identified, thus the remedies are aimed at the wrong target. Religion as a whole is very involved in this very error.

The true source of the problems is not ideas such as "I am X". The real source is the medium which both "I" and "X" are made of. Self identity is a symptom, a product, of the underlying fundamental process of division.

Thought operates by a process of division. It divides everything it touches. It divides me from you, me from society, me from reality, me within myself.

Trying to think one's way out of this box just piles more logs on the fire.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Jokes go a long way in the business agenda

You could be right. If JK had popped his authority bubble a bit with some fart jokes that might indeed made him more popular. But probably with a different audience, more hippies, fewer intellectuals.

JK was a very dignified and classy person, very much part of his appeal. He spoke to hippies among others, but he certainly wasn't one himself. I'm not sure he could pull off a fart joke, much to his classy credit. :-)

So did you hear the one about the crackpot who said JK should tell fart jokes, but that suggestion turned out to be a fart itself? Ha, ha, ha, ha..... ha..... uh.....

What? Hello? Is this mic on?

Quoting Hippyhead

But what happens? Typically all that happens by this process is that the person's self identity changes from something like "I am a smart person" or "I am a sad person" to something like "I am a holy person". Some see "holy" as being a more appealing identity than smart or sad, so such a process can be popular.

The better term here, rather than "I am holy", might be "I am pious". "I am holy" implies I am of great perfection and I ought to be revered, while "I am pious" implies that I have great respect for something more perfect and higher than myself.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The better term here, rather than "I am holy", might be "I am pious". "I am holy" implies I am of great perfection and I ought to be revered, while "I am pious" implies that I have great respect for something more perfect and higher than myself

Ok sure, the new identify comes in many flavors, agreed.

And then there's another factor, other people buying in to whatever new identify we've created for ourselves.

I always think of Eckhart Tolle here, but many examples could be given. Best I could tell he's a sincere guy who has learned and skillfully articulated some insightful ideas (very similar to JK). And then a bunch of people who want a leader gather around and start chanting, "You are holy, you are wise, you are our teacher, our leader" etc. And being human, who can resist? I mean, if it were me, and there were hippy chicks involved, I'm lost, a goner.

I'm not sure if this is true but I read once that Tolle was charging folks to touch him. Could be a rumor, but he appears to be charging for lots of stuff, so maybe not. Anyway, point being, if we don't succeed in sucking ourselves in to delusion there may be a bunch of folks standing by ready to help us.

Reply to Hippyhead
Fart jokes have a long history. Socrates compared the philosopher to a midwife, assisting in the conception. Sometime the supposed conception turns out to be flatulence.

Ha! True that. I should have never brought up fart jokes. Ever since I did I've been plagued by this mental image of my hands on a computer keyboard, and a broken sewer main. Too scary! So I will now return to the safety of the topic.

PTPG, 2nd letter:My King is full of mercy and goodness. Far from chastising me, He embraces me with love. He makes me eat at His table. He serves me with His own hands and gives me the key to His treasures. He converses and delights Himself with me incessantly, in a thousand and a thousand ways. And He treats me in all respects as His favorite. In this way I consider myself continually in His holy presence.

My most usual method is this simple attention, an affectionate regard for God to whom I find myself often attached with greater sweetness and delight than that of an infant at the mother's breast. To choose an expression, I would call this state the bosom of God, for the inexpressible sweetness which I taste and experience there. If, at any time, my thoughts wander from it from necessity or infirmity, I am presently recalled by inward emotions so charming and delicious that I cannot find words to describe them. Please reflect on my great wretchedness, of which you are fully informed, rather than on the great favors God does one as unworthy and ungrateful as I am.

As for my set hours of prayer, they are simply a continuation of the same exercise. Sometimes I consider myself as a stone before a carver, whereof He is to make a statue. Presenting myself thus before God, I desire Him to make His perfect image in my soul and render me entirely like Himself. At other times, when I apply myself to prayer, I feel all my spirit lifted up without any care or effort on my part. This often continues as if it was suspended yet firmly fixed in God like a center or place of rest.

I know that some charge this state with inactivity, delusion, and self-love. I confess that it is a holy inactivity. And it would be a happy self-love if the soul, in that state, were capable of it. But while the soul is in this repose, she cannot be disturbed by the kinds of things to which she was formerly accustomed. The things that the soul used to depend on would now hinder rather than assist her.

Yet, I cannot see how this could be called imagination or delusion because the soul which enjoys God in this way wants nothing but Him. If this is delusion, then only God can remedy it. Let Him do what He pleases with me. I desire only Him and to be wholly devoted to Him.

Please send me your opinion as I greatly value and have a singular esteem for your reverence, and am yours.

Zen koan:Before enlightenment; chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment; chop wood, carry water.

Or in this case, mending the sandals of the monks. Sandals are mended, letters are written, in a state of inactivity that fills the whole life where before was the void of self, and desire.

PTPG, 4th letter:For the past forty years his continual care has been to be always with God; and to do nothing, say nothing, and think nothing which may displease Him. He does this without any view or motive except pure love of Him and because God deserves infinitely more.

He is now so accustomed to that Divine presence that he receives from it continual comfort and peace. For about thirty years his soul has been filled with joy and delight so continual, and sometimes so great, that he is forced to find ways to hide their appearing outwardly to others who may not understand.

If sometimes he becomes a little distracted from that Divine presence, God gently recalls Himself by a stirring in his soul. This often happens when he is most engaged in his outward chores and tasks. He answers with exact fidelity to these inward drawings, either by an elevation of his heart towards God, or by a meek and fond regard to Him, or by such words as love forms upon these occasions. For instance, he may say, "My God, here I am all devoted to You," or "Lord, make me according to Your heart."

Br. Lawrence speaks of himself in the 3rd person. A conventional humility. I wonder if you can read through the unfamiliar religious language?

Zen Koan 35: Zen students are with their masters at least ten years before they presume to teach others, after all learning all one can isn’t as easy as learning how to ask a girl out or how to ride ones bicycle. These are lessons that take the span of a decade to master. Nan-in was visited by Tenno, who, having passed his apprenticeship, had become a teacher. The day happened to be rainy, so Tenno wore wooden clogs and carried an umbrella. After greeting him Nan-in remarked: “I suppose you left your wodden clogs in the vestibule. I want to know if your umbrella is on the right or left side of the clogs.”

Tenno, confused, had no instant answer. He realized that he was unable to carry his Zen every minute. He became Nan-in’s pupil, and he studied six more years to accomplish his every-minute Zen.

Sometimes one becomes distracted, until one attains one's every minute presence. I don't suppose I am the only one who sees these wildly divergent cultures saying the exact same things. And if that is so, that explorers of "the outer reaches of consciousness", (shall we say?) have independently arrived at very similar places, then it seems probable that we are dealing with, at the least, a real phenomenon of human psychology. Is that extravagant?

Quoting Hippyhead

Best I could tell he's a sincere guy who has learned and skillfully articulated some insightful ideas (very similar to JK). And then a bunch of people who want a leader gather around and start chanting, "You are holy, you are wise, you are our teacher, our leader" etc. And being human, who can resist?

Do you see the need for humility? The moral strength of the human being lies in the capacity to say no.

PTPG, 4th letter:He often points out our blindness and exclaims that those who content themselves with so little are to be pitied. God, says he, has infinite treasure to bestow, and we take so little through routine devotion which lasts but a moment. Blind as we are, we hinder God, and stop the current of His graces. But when He finds a soul penetrated with a lively faith, He pours into it His graces and favors plentifully. There they flow like a torrent, which, after being forcibly stopped against its ordinary course, when it has found a passage, spreads itself with impetuosity and abundance.

Yet we often stop this torrent by the little value we set upon it. Let us stop it no more. Let us enter into ourselves and break down the bank which hinders it. Let us make way for grace. Let us redeem the lost time, for perhaps we have but little left. Death follows us close so let us be well prepared for it. We die but once and a mistake there is irretrievable.

I say again, let us enter into ourselves. The time presses. There is no room for delay. Our souls are at stake. It seems to me that you are prepared and have taken effectual measures so you will not be taken by surprise. I commend you for it. It is the one thing necessary. We must always work at it, because not to persevere in the spiritual life is to go back. But those who have the gale of the Holy Spirit go forward even in sleep. If the vessel of our soul is still tossed with winds and storms, let us awake the Lord who reposes in it. He will quickly calm the sea.

The question of why we content ourselves with a little even when we have intimations of possible abundance is an important one. I think it is fear - the fear of losing the little. I have my little life with its discontents and its manageable pleasures. And I remain in this small known world ...

Hillaire Belloc:And always keep ahold of nurse
For fear of finding something worse.

But if I always keep ahold of nurse, I will never grow up - never enter the torrent of life. The torrent, indeed of myself. But of course to see this much is already to have dipped a questioning toe into the torrent of the unconscious.

"... not to persevere in the spiritual life is to go back."

I have experienced the truth of this myself. It is the danger inherent in studying such works, and explains, perhaps, some of the reticence of mystics to discuss openly. Once one has a glimmer of understanding of the direction one ought to take in one's life, to fail to act from fear, or attachment to the old familiar life, is to betray one's best self in favour of one's worst; it is self harm.

PTPG, 8th letter.:You are not the only one who is troubled with wandering thoughts. Our mind is extremely roving. But the will is mistress of all our faculties. She must recall our stray thoughts and carry them to God as their final end.

If the mind is not sufficiently controlled and disciplined at our first engaging in devotion, it contracts certain bad habits of wandering and dissipation. These are difficult to overcome. The mind can draw us, even against our will, to worldly things. I believe one remedy for this is to humbly confess our faults and beg God's mercy and help.

I do not advise you to use multiplicity of words in prayer. Many words and long discourses are often the occasions of wandering. Hold yourself in prayer before God, like a dumb or paralytic beggar at a rich man's gate. Let it be your business to keep your mind in the presence of the Lord. If your mind sometimes wanders and withdraws itself from Him, do not become upset. Trouble and disquiet serve rather to distract the mind than to re-collect it. The will must bring it back in tranquillity. If you persevere in this manner, God will have pity on you.

One way to re-collect the mind easily in the time of prayer, and preserve it more in tranquillity, is not to let it wander too far at other times. Keep your mind strictly in the presence of God. Then being accustomed to think of Him often, you will find it easy to keep your mind calm in the time of prayer, or at least to recall it from its wanderings. I have told you already of the advantages we may draw from this practice of the presence of God. Let us set about it seriously and pray for one another.

In zazen, when we realize we’ve been caught up in thinking, we try not to react at all. We just return to wholeheartedly sitting. A classic analogy for this is trying to hold a bowl of water very still. If you shake, or the wind blows, the water will be disturbed, but there’s nothing you can actively do to make the water calm again. Any motion you make, like patting the surface of the water, will only make things worse; the only thing you can do is hold still. Stimulus-independent thinking is like the turbulence in the water, and absorbing yourself in just sitting is like holding the bowl still. Patting the surface of the water is analogous to evaluating your meditation and mulling over how to improve it, feeling frustrated with your mind or with yourself, judging thinking as being bad, or even trying to hold your mind on something in rigid way in order to brace yourself against stimulus-independent thinking.

https://zenstudiespodcast.com/zazenpart2/

Again, it is obvious that the practice is substantially the same across cultures, though the language is different. And this goes too for the recommendation to continue the meditative practice at a less intense level as one goes about daily life. I like that phrase "stimulus-independent thinking" - think about what you are doing and seeing and avoid absent minded thinking. Chop that wood attentively! Read that thread carefully!

Krishnamurti:Most of us are afraid to hear deeply, but it is only when we hear deeply, when the sounds penetrate deeply, that there is a possibility of a fundamental, radical change. Such change is not possible if you listen superficially, and if I may suggest, at least for this evening, please try to listen without any resistance, without any prejudice - just listen. Do not make tremendous effort to understand, because understanding does not come through effort, understanding does not come through striving. Understanding comes swiftly, unknowingly, when the effort is passive; only when the maker of effort is silent does the wave of understanding come. So, if I may suggest, listen as you would listen to the water that is flowing by. You are not imagining, you are not making an effort to listen, you are just listening. Then the sound conveys its own meaning, and that understanding is far deeper, far greater, and more lasting than the mere understanding of words that comes through intellectual effort. The understanding of words which is called intellectual comprehension is utterly empty. You say, "I understand intellectually, but I cannot put it into practice," which means, really, that you do not understand.

http://krishnamurtiaustralia.org/articles/Krishnamurti_on_Listening.html

Quoting unenlightened

I like that phrase "stimulus-independent thinking" - think about what you are doing and seeing and avoid absent minded thinking.

I agree, to be attentive requires a certain will to be so, one might even call this an effort. But watch out for what follows, when it comes to understanding effort may have a negative effect.

Well, doing something requires that you be attentive and concentrate on what you are doing. But understanding is not really a case of doing something, it's a passivity. So if you start making an effort to understand, as if you are making an effort to do something, the effort will go toward something which is not really understanding, and this will actually be a distraction which prevents understanding. The focus and attentiveness which is required for understanding is completely different from the focus and attentiveness which is required for doing something, understanding being something other than doing something.

I like this one:

Krishnamurti:"I understand intellectually, but I cannot put it into practice," which means, really, that you do not understand.

When we make effort to learn things, we memorize, principles, rules, orders, mathematical operations, etc.. We memorize all these things, to be able to recall them, know them, and we can actually use them in the conventional ways, without even understanding them. It's like when people talk, and say things without really understanding what they're saying. It's a matter of being able to repeat, mimic, or copy, without understanding the meaning of what is being copied.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

When we make effort to learn things, we memorize, principles, rules, orders, mathematical operations, etc.. We memorize all these things, to be able to recall them, know them, and we can actually use them in the conventional ways, without even understanding them. It's like when people talk, and say things without really understanding what they're saying. It's a matter of being able to repeat, mimic, or copy, without understanding the meaning of what is being copied.

Indeed! Not that one should not learn things, and even conventions, but as a way of life it falls short. Use your head, but don't live in it.

PTPG, 15th letter:God knows best what we need. All that He does is for our good. If we knew how much He loves us, we would always be ready to receive both the bitter and the sweet from His Hand. It would make no difference. All that came from Him would be pleasing. The worst afflictions only appear intolerable if we see them in the wrong light. When we see them as coming from the hand of God and know that it is our loving Father who humbles and distresses us, our sufferings lose their bitterness and can even become a source of consolation.

Let all our efforts be to know God. The more one knows Him, the greater one desires to know Him. Knowledge is commonly the measure of love. The deeper and more extensive our knowledge, the greater is our love. If our love of God were great we would love Him equally in pain and pleasure.

We only deceive ourselves by seeking or loving God for any favors which He has or may grant us. Such favors, no matter how great, can never bring us as near to God as can one simple act of faith. Let us seek Him often by faith. He is within us. Seek Him not elsewhere.

Are we not rude and deserve blame if we leave Him alone to busy ourselves with trifles which do not please Him and perhaps even offend Him? These trifles may one day cost us dearly. Let us begin earnestly to be devoted to Him. Let us cast everything else out of our hearts. He wants to possess the heart alone. Beg this favor of Him. If we do all we can, we will soon see that change wrought in us which we so greatly desire.

I cannot thank Him enough for the relief He has given you. I hope to see Him within a few days. Let us pray for one another.

At the end of his life, it is still the act of faith that is of central importance, and both pleasure and suffering are 'trifles'. I think the nearest this secular age can get to an understanding is perhaps the loyalty one feels towards one's home country, or one's local team. It is not an identification, but a commitment to the other that is also 'within'. It makes no sense to the rational mind

Cloud 84:For when I say darkness, I mean a lacking of knowing: as all that thing that thou knowest not, or else that thou hast forgotten, it is dark to thee; for thou seest it not with thy ghostly eye. And for this reason it is not called a cloud of the air, but a cloud of unknowing, that is betwixt thee and thy God.

HERE BEGINNETH THE FIFTH CHAPTER

That in the time of this word all the creatures that ever have been, be now, or ever shall be, and all the works of those same creatures, should be hid under the cloud of forgetting.
AND if ever thou shalt come to this cloud and dwell and work therein as I bid thee, thee behoveth as this cloud of unknowing is above thee, betwixt thee and thy God, right so put a cloud of forgetting beneath thee; betwixt thee and all the creatures that ever be made. Thee thinketh, peradventure, that thou art full far from God because that this cloud of unknowing is betwixt thee and thy God: but surely, an it be well conceived, thou art well further from Him when thou hast no cloud of forgetting betwixt thee and all the creatures that ever be made. As oft as I say, all the creatures that ever be made, as oft I mean not only the creatures themselves, but also all the works and the conditions of the same creatures. I take out not one creature, whether they be bodily creatures or ghostly, nor yet any condition or work of any creature, whether they be good or evil: but shortly to say, all should be hid under the cloud of forgetting in this case.

Good luck proving a contradiction in a cloud of unknowing!

Cloud 89:BUT now thou askest me and sayest, “How shall I think on Himself, and what is He?” and to this I cannot answer thee but thus: “I wot not.”
For thou hast brought me with thy question into that same darkness, and into that same cloud of unknowing, that I would thou wert in thyself. For of all other creatures and their works, yea, and of the works of God’s self, may a man through grace have fullhead of knowing, and well he can think of them: but of God Himself can no man think. And therefore I would leave all that thing that I can think, and choose to my love that thing that I cannot think. For why; He may well be loved, but not thought. By love may He be gotten and holden; but by thought never. And therefore, although it be good sometime to think of the kindness and the worthiness of God in special, and although it be a light and a part of contemplation: nevertheless yet in this work it shall be cast down and covered with a cloud of forgetting. And thou shalt step above it stalwartly, but Mistily, with a devout and a pleasing stirring of love, and try for to pierce that darkness above thee. And smite upon that thick cloud of unknowing with a sharp dart of longing love; and go not thence for thing that befalleth.

And here, with all respect, I rest my case for the prosecution that all argument as to the mere existence or non-existence of that Beloved is guilty of utter triviality. What business is it of mine if there will ever be a reader of what I write? It is an act of faith to say and share my best truth with anyone or no one. And now read on at your convenience and explain it to me in turn if you will.

When thought does not look, then there is only observation, without the mechanical process of recognition and comparison, justification and condemnation; this seeing does not fatigue the brain for all mechanical processes of time have stopped. Through complete rest the brain is made fresh, to respond without reaction, to live without deterioration, to die without the torture of problems. To look without thought is to see without the interference of time, knowledge and conflict. This freedom to see is not a reaction; all reactions have causes; to look without reaction is not indifference, aloofness, a cold-blooded withdrawal. To see without the mechanism of thought is total seeing, without particularization and division, which does not mean that there is not separation and dissimilarity. The tree does not become a house or the house a tree. Seeing without thought does not put the brain to sleep; on the contrary, it is fully awake, attentive, without friction and pain.