Wednesday, April 25, 2012

it's teaching love and philosophy alone.

Hinduism is the oldest spiritual tradition of this world and is all about liberty and freedom to carve one's own path to divine.It has no concept of apostasy or blasphemy or even conversion ! But without any push towards conversion it is winning hearts and minds of people all over the world by it's teaching,love and philosophy alone.
Liberty is gr8est asset of humanity and no liberty is gr8er than liberty of choosing your Gods/Goddesses or none ! That is Hinduism Liberty and Liberation
Hinduism is not just a faith. It is the union of reason and intuition that can not be defined but is only to be experienced. Evil and error are not ultimate. There is no Hell, for that 

means there is a place where God is not, and there are sins which exceed his love.
Hindu texts laugh at religions as being the dogma of self - righteous fools and emphasize on Dharma - the righteous way. Hinduism is just a convenient label for the worlds oldest spiritual and philosophical tradition.
Shiv Ratri symbolizes Union  of Shiv + Shakti
Shiv Ratri symbolizes Union of Shiv + Shakti ie. Marriage of Benevolence + Power
Shiv = Benevolent ie. Shubh Kalyankari
Shakti = Power
Shiv and Shakti are Complimentary to each other and Incomplete when alone.
Benevolence, ie. Shiv ( husband ) the dominating part alone is use less without Power ie. Shakti ( wife ) the better half
Shakti ( Power ) alone is undoubtedly corrupting and very dangerous without tie up ( Marriage ) with Shiv ( Benevolence )
It is undisputed fact that Power Corrupts, and

Absolute ( unchecked ) Power Corrupts Absolutely  therefore, the "Power" must be kept under control of Benevolence
Shiv Ratri, which symbolises " Marriage of Benevolence " with Power, is a hidden message to learned people to keep the Benevolence and Power ever united to keep the humanity in a perpetual state of Bliss.
May the Blessings of Divine Couple Lord Shiva and Goddess Shakti always be upon us for ever.
Note : This message is given well in advance so that time could be spared to ponder over the significance of forth coming Shiv Ratri.
- thanx  with vijay kumar mishra .blog - krishna aala re .click here for visit

Saturday, April 7, 2012

if you try to look at yourself

Inwardly unconsciously  there is the tremendous weight of the past pushing you in a certain direction. Now  how is one to wipe all that away ? How is the unconscious to be cleansed immediately of the past ? The analysts think that the unconscious can be partially or even completely cleansed through analysis, through investigation, exploration, confession, the interpretation of dreams, and so on; so that at least you become a normal human being, able to adjust your self to the present environment. But in analysis there is always the analyzer and the analyzed, an observer who is interpreting the thing observed, which is a duality, a source of conflict.
So I see that mere analysis of the unconscious will not lead anywhere. It may help me to be a little less 

neurotic, a little kinder to my wife, to my neighbor, or some superficial thing like that; but that is not what we are talking about. I see that the analytical process which involves time, interpretation, the movement of thought as the observer analyzing the thing observed cannot free the unconscious; therefore I reject the analytical process completely. The moment I perceive the fact that analysis cannot under any circumstances clear away the burden of the unconscious, I am out of analysis. I no longer analyze. So what has taken place ? Because there is no longer an analyzer separated from the thing that he analyzes, he is that thing. He is not an entity apart from it. Then one finds that the unconscious is of very little importance. The Book of Life
To understand relationship, there must be a passive awareness, which does not destroy relationship. On the contrary, it makes relationship much more vital, much more significant. Then there is in that relationship a possibility of real affection; there is a warmth, a sense of nearness, which is not mere sentiment or sensation. And if we can so approach or be in that relationship to everything, then our problems will be easily solved;the problems of property, the problems of possession. Because, we are that which we possess. The man who possesses

money is the money. The man who identifies himself with property is the property, or the house, or the furniture. Similarly with ideas, or with people; and when there is possessiveness, there is no relationship. But most of us possess because we have nothing else, if we do not possess. We are empty shells if we do not possess, if we do not fill our life with furniture, with music, with knowledge, with this or that. And that shell makes a lot of noise, and that noise we call living; and with that we are satisfied. And when there is a disruption, a breaking away of that, then there is sorrow because then you suddenly discover yourself as you are:an empty shell, without much meaning. So, to be aware of the whole content of relationship is action; and from that action there is a possibility of true relationship, a possibility of discovering its great depth, its great significance, and of knowing what love is.
 J. Krishnamurti, The Book of Life

When you name a thing, the very word acts as a distraction from observation. When you use the word 'cypress', you are looking at that tree through the word; so you are not actually looking at the tree. You are looking at that tree through the image that you have built up, and so the image prevents you from looking. In the same way, if you try to look at yourself without the image this is quite strange and deeply disturbing. To look when you are angry, when you are jealous, to look at that feeling without naming it, without putting it into a category. Because when you put it into a category or name it, you are looking at that present state of feeling through the past memory. I don't know if you are following this. So you are actually not looking at the feeling, but you are looking through the memory which has been accumulated when other similar types of feeling arose.

but the aloneness of the impossible

Meditation, along that quiet and deserted road came like a soft rain over the hills; it came as easily and naturally as the coming night. There was no effort of any kind and no control with its concentrations and distractions; there was no order and pursuit; no denial or acceptance nor any continuity of memory in meditation. The brain was aware of its environment but quiet without response, uninfluenced but recognizing without responding. It was very quiet and words had faded with thought. There was that strange energy, call it by any other name, it has no importance whatsoever, deeply active, without object and purpose; it was creation, without the canvas and the marble, and destructive  it was not the thing of human brain, of expression and decay. It was not approachable, to be classified 

and analysed, and thought and feeling are not the instruments of its comprehension. It was completely unrelated to everything and totally alone in its vastness and immensity. And walking along that darkening road, there was the ecstasy of the impossible, not of achievement, arriving, success and all those immature demands and responses, but the aloneness of the impossible. The possible is mechanical and the impossible can be envisaged, tried and perhaps achieved which in turn becomes mechanical. But the ecstasy had no cause, no reason. It was simply there, not as an experience but as a fact, not to be accepted or denied, to be argued over and dissected. It was not a thing to be sought after for there is no path to it. Everything has to die for it to be, death, 

destruction which is love. A poor, worn-out labourer, in torn dirty clothes, was returning home with his bone-thin cow.
Krishnamurti s Notebook Part 6 Madras 3rd Public Talk 29th December 1979
What is reality....what is truth...
Please visit the link
और वि‍स्‍तार से पढ़ें । इन लिंक पर -
प्रमुख वेबसाइटस पते
Krishnamurti Foundation of India,

Chennai, India : Vasanta Vihar, 124 Greenways Road, Madras 600 028
Tel: (91)(44) 24937803/24937596 Fax: (91)(44) 24952328
Email: Web:
Fundación Krishnamurti Latinoamericana, Barcelona, Spain Tel: (34) 938 695 042
Web:www.kfa.orgE-mail: Web:
Krishnamurti Foundation Trust, Brockwood Park, Bramdean, England
Brockwood Park Bramdean, Hampshire SO24 0LQ, England
Tel: +44 (0) 1962 771525 Fax: +44 (0) 1962 771159
Email: Web:
Krishnamurti Foundation of America, Ojai, California, USA
P.O.Box 1560, Ojai, CA 93024, USA. Tel: 805-646-2726 Fax: 805-646-6674
जे कृष्णमूर्ति साहित्य का वृहद हिन्दी, गुजराती और पंजाबी अनुवाद  पर भी उपलब्ध है ।

why attention is of the highest importance

Now this reality is something which I assert that I have attained. For me, it is not a theological concept. It is my own life-experience, definite, real, concrete. I can, therefore, speak of what is necessary for its achievement, and I say that the first thing is the recognizing exactly what desire must become in order to fulfil oneself, and then to discipline oneself so that at every moment, one is watching one's own desires, and guiding them towards that all-inclusiveness of impersonal love which must be their true consummation. When you have established the discipline of this constant awareness, this constant watchfulness upon all that you think and feel and do, then life ceases to be the tyrannical, tedious, confusing thing that it is for most of us, and becomes but a series of opportunities towards that perfect fulfillment. The goal of life is, therefore, not something far off, to be attained in the distant future, but it is to be realised moment by moment in that now which is all eternity.
Do not think that what I say applies to the young and not to the old, or vice-versa. I am emphasizing this because a friend of mine said the other day, "Why have you taken up this work ? You are too young. You might still fall in love." As though spirituality were reserved for the aged and those with one foot in the grave. The moment you divide up life and think of its goal as something to be 

attained eventually in some distant future, the sweet purpose of this realisation is lost, because the eventuality of life is in the very movement of action. Life knows no division into young and old. Early Works, circa 1930 Early Works, circa 1930
Learning in the true sense of the word is possible only in that state of attention, in which there is no outer or inner compulsion. Right thinking can come about only when the mind is not enslaved by tradition and memory. It is attention that allows silence to come upon the mind, which is the opening of the door to creation. That is why attention is of the highest importance. Knowledge is necessary at the functional level as a means of cultivating the mind, and not as an end in itself. We are concerned, not with the development of just one capacity, such as that of a mathematician, or a scientist, or a musician, but with the total development of the student as a human being.
How is the state of attention to be brought about ? It cannot be cultivated through persuasion, comparison, reward or punishment, all of which are forms of coercion. The elimination of fear is the beginning of attention. Fear must exist as long as there is an urge to be or to become, which is the pursuit of success, with all its frustrations and tortuous contradictions. You can teach concentration, 

but attention cannot be taught just as you cannot possibly teach freedom from fear; but we can begin to discover the causes that produce fear, and in understanding these causes there is the elimination of fear. So attention arises spontaneously when around the student there is an atmosphere of well-being, when he has the feeling of being secure, of being at ease, and is aware of the disinterested action that comes with love. Love does not compare, and so the envy and torture of `becoming' cease.
J. Krishnamurti Life Ahead Saanen 4th Public Dialogue 3rd August 1974.

You can have confidence

One is a seeker, one is questioning; therefore one rejects completely all information provided by others about oneself. Will one do that ? One will not, because it is much safer to accept authority. Then one feels secure. But if one does completely reject the authority of everybody, how does one observe the movement of the self ? - for the self is not static, it is moving, living, acting. How does one observe something that is that is tremendously active, full of urges, ambitions, greed, romaticism ? Which means: can one observe the movement of the self with all of its desires and fears, without knowledge acquired from others or which one has acquired in examining oneself ? J. Krishnamurti, Krishnamurti Foundation Trust, Bulletin 40
Freedom cannot be given; freedom is something that comes into being when you do not seek it; it 

comes into being only when you know you are a prisoner, when you know for yourself completely the state of being conditioned, when you know you are held by society, by culture, by tradition, held by whatever you have been told. Freedom is order - it is never disorder - and one must have freedom, completely, both outwardly and inwardly; without freedom there is no clarity; without freedom you can't love; without freedom you can't find truth; without freedom you can't go beyond the limitation of the mind. You must demand it with all your being. When you so demand it, you will find out for yourself what order is - and order is not the following of a pattern, a design; it is not the outcome of habit. J. Krishnamurti, Bombay, India, January 1968 Collected Works. Vol. VIII

Meditation is seeing the constant touching the ever-changing movement of life. The man who has progressed through being a sinner to being a saint has progressed from one illusion to another. This whole movement is an illusion. When the mind sees this illusion it is no longer creating any illusion, it is no longer measuring. Therefore thought has come to an end with regard to becoming better. Out of this comes a state of liberation - and this is sacred. This alone can, perhaps, receive the constant. J. Krishnamurti, Krishnamurti Foundation Trust, Bulletin 22, 1974
Question - Instead of addressing heterogeneous crowds in many places and dazzling and confounding them with your brilliance and subtlety, why do you not start a community or colony and create a reference for your way of thinking? Are you afraid that this could never be done?

Krishnamurti -  Sir brilliance and subtlety should always be kept under cover, because too much exposure of brilliance only blinds. It is not my intention to blind or show cleverness, that is too stupid; but when one sees things very clearly, one cannot help setting them out very clearly. This you may think brilliant and subtle. To me, what I am saying is not brilliant: it is the obvious. That is one fact. The other is, you want me to found an ashram or a community. Now, why ? Why do you want me to found a community ? You say that it will act as a reference, that is, something which can be pointed out as a successful experiment. That is what a reference implies, does it not ? - a community where all these things are being carried out. That is what you want. I do not want to found an ashram or a community, but you want it. Now, why do you want such a community ? I will tell you why. It is very interesting, is it not? You want it because you would like to join with others and create a community, but you do not want to start a community with yourself; you want somebody else to do it, and when it is done you will join it. In other words, Sir, you are afraid of starting on your own, therefore you want a reference. That is, you want something which will give you authority of a kind that can be carried out. In other words, you yourself are not confident, and therefore you say, `Found a community and I will join it'. Sir, where you are you can found a community, but you can

found that community only when you have confidence. The trouble is that you have no confidence. Why are you not confident? What do I mean by confidence? The man who wants to achieve a result, who gets what he wants, is full of confidence the business man, the lawyer, the policeman, the general, are all full of confidence. Now, here you have no confidence. Why ? For the simple reason you have not experimented. The moment you experiment with this, you will have confidence. Nobody else can give you confidence; no book, no teacher can give you confidence. Encouragement is not confidence; encouragement is merely superficial, childish, immature. Confidence comes as you experiment; and when you experiment with nationalism, wit even the smallest thing, then as you experiment you will have confidence, because your mind will be swift, pliable; and then where you are there will be an ashram, you yourself will found the community. That is clear, is it not ? You are more important than any community. If you join a community, you will be as you are - you will have somebody to boss you, you will have laws, regulations and discipline, you will be another Mr. Smith or Mr. Rao in that beastly community. You want a community only when you want to be directed, to be told what to do. A man who wants to be directed is aware of his lack of confidence in himself. You can have confidence, not by talking about self-confidence, but only when you experiment, when you try. Sir, the reference is you, so, experiment, wherever you are, a whatever level 

of thought. You are the only reference, not the community; and when the community becomes the reference, you are lost. I hope there will be lots of people joining together and experimenting, having full confidence and therefore coming together; but for you to sit outside and say, `Why don't you form a community for me to join?', is obviously a foolish question. J. Krishnamurti The Collected Works, Vol. V  Look at the truth

he has flattered me

The death of a tree is beautiful in its ending, unlike man's. A dead tree in the desert, stripped of its bark, polished by the sun and the wind, all its naked branches open to the heavens, is a wondrous sight. A great redwood, many, many hundreds of years old, is cut down in a few minutes to make fences, seats, and build houses or enrich the soil in the garden. The marvellous giant is gone. Man is pushing deeper and deeper into the forests, destroying them for pasture and houses. The wilds are disappearing. There is a valley, whose surrounding hills are perhaps the oldest on earth, where cheetahs, bears and the deer one once saw have entirely disappeared, for man is everywhere. The beauty of the earth is slowly being destroyed and polluted. Cars and tall buildings are appearing in the most unexpected places. When you lose your relationship with nature and the vast heavens, you lose your relationship with man. J. Krishnamurti Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Bulletin 56, 1989
Q - You tell us to observe our actions in daily life but what is the entity that decides what to observe and when ? Who decides if one should observe ?
Krishnamurti - Do you decide to observe ? Or do you merely observe ? Do you decide and say - I am going to observe and learn'? For then there is the 

question: `Who is deciding?' Is it will that says, `I must'? And when it fails, it chastises itself further and says, `I must, must, must; in that there is conflict; therefore the state of mind that has decided to observe is not observation at all. You are walking down the road, somebody passes you by, you observe and you may say to yourself, `How ugly he is; how he smells; I wish he would not do this or that'. You are aware of your responses to that passer-by, you are aware that you are judging, condemning or justifying; you are observing. You do not say, `I must not judge, I must not justify'. In being aware of your responses, there is no decision at all. You see somebody who insulted you yesterday. Immediately all your hackles are up, you become nervous or anxious, you begin to dislike; be aware of your dislike, be aware of all that, do not `decide' to be aware. Observe, and in that 

observation there is neither the observer nor the observed - there is only observation taking place. The `observer' exists only when you accumulate in the observation; when you say, `He is my friend because he has flattered me  or He is not my friend, because he has said something ugly about me, or something true which I do not like,. That is accumulation through observation and that accumulation is the observer. When you observe without accumulation, then there is no judgement. You can do this all the time; in that observation naturally certain definite decisions are natural results, not decisions made by the observer who has accumulated.
Is forgiveness love ? What is implied in forgiveness ? You insult me and I resent it, remember it; then, either through compulsion or through repentance, I say - I forgive you. First I retain and then I reject. Which means what ? I am still the central figure  it is I who am forgiving somebody. As long as there is the attitude of forgiving it is I who am important, not the man who is supposed to have insulted me. So when I accumulate resentment and then deny that resentment, which you call forgiveness, it is not love. A man who loves obviously has no enmity and to all these things he is indifferent. Sympathy, forgiveness, the relationship of possessiveness, jealousy and fear - all these things are not love. They are all of the mind, are they not ? The First and Last Freedom, p 233

Really you have no love

Obviously love is not sentiment. To be sentimental, to be emotional, is not love, because sentimentality and emotion are mere sensations. A religious person who weeps about Jesus or Krishna, about his guru and somebody else is merely sentimental, emotional. He is indulging in sensation, which is a process of thought, and thought is not love. Thought is the result of sensation, so the person who is sentimental, who is emotional, cannot possibly know love. Again, aren’t we emotional and sentimental? Sentimentality, emotionalism, is merely a form of self-expansion. To be full of emotion is obviously not love, because a sentimental person can be cruel when his sentiments are not responded to, when his feelings have no outlet. An emotional person can be stirred to hatred, to war, to butchery. A man who is sentimental, full of tears for his religion, surely, has no love. The First and Last Freedom, pp 232-233
We are all so crazy about desire, we want to fulfil ourselves through desire. But we do not see what havoc it creates in the world - the desire for individual security, for individual attainment, success, power, prestige. We do not feel that we are

totally responsible for everything we do. If one understands desire, the nature of it, then what place has it ? Has it any place where there is love ? The Network of Thought, p 49
Really you have no love. You have pleasure, you have sensation, you have sexual attachments, such as the family  the wife, the husband, the attachment to a nation. But attachment is not love. And love is not something divine and profane: it has no division. Love means something to care for: to care for the tree, for your neighbour, for the child - to see that the child has the right education, not just put him in a school and disappear; the right education not just technological education - and to see that the children have the right

teachers, right food, that they understand life, that they understand sex. Teaching children merely geography, mathematics, or a technical thing which will give them a job - that is not love. And without love you cannot be moral - you may be respectable  that is, you may conform to society; that you will not steal, that you will not chase your neighbour’s wife, that you will not do this and you will not do that. But that is not morality, that is not virtue, that is merely the conformity of respectability. Respectability is the most terrible, disgusting thing on earth, because it covers so many ugly things. Whereas when there is love, there is morality. Do what you will, it is moral, if there is love. The Collected Works vol XIV, p 302

Am I talking to myself ?

You see a beautiful car, you touch the polish, see its shape and texture. Out of that there is sensation. Then thought comes and says - How nice it would be if I got it, how nice it would be if I got into it and drove off.” So what has happened ? Thought has intervened, has given shape to sensation. Thought has given to sensation the image of you sitting in the car and driving off. At that moment, as that second, when thought creates the image of you sitting in the car, desire is born. Desire is born when thought gives a shape, an image, to sensation. Now, sensation is the way of existence, it is part of existence. But you have learnt to suppress, conquer, or live with desire 

with all its problems. Now, if you understand this, not intellectually but actually, that when thought gives shape to sensation, at that second desire is born, then the question arises: Is it possible to see and touch the car - which is sensation - but not let thought create the image ? So keep a gap. That Benediction is Where You Are, p 54
Now the question is whether there can be a hiatus, a gap; that is, have only sensation, and not let thought come and control sensation. That is the problem. Why does thought create the image and hold on to that sensation? Is it possible to look at the shirt, touch it - sensation - and stop, not allow thought to enter into it ? Have you ever tried any of these ? When thought enters into the field of sensation - and thought is also a sensation - then thought takes control of sensation, and desire begins. Is it possible to only observe, contact, sensation, and nothing else ? And discipline has no place in this because the moment you begin to discipline, that is 

another form of desire to achieve something. So one has to discover the beginning of desire and see what happens. Don’t buy the shirt immediately, but see what happens. You can look at it; but we are so eager to get something, to possess a shirt, a man, a woman or some status that we never have the time, the quietness, to look at all this. Mind Without Measure, pp 19-20
Why is it that all religions, all so-called religious people, have suppressed desire? All over the world, the monks, the sannyasis, have denied desire, though they are boiling inside. The fire of desire is burning, but they deny it by suppressing it or identifying that desire with a symbol,

with a figure and surrendering that desire to the figure, to that person. But it is still desire. Most of us, when we become aware of our desires, either suppress or indulge it or come into conflict; the battle goes on. We are not advocating either to suppress it or to surrender to it or to control it. That has been done all over the world by every religious person. We are examining it very closely so that out of your own understanding of that desire, how it arises, its nature, out of that understanding, self-awareness of it, one becomes intelligent. Then that intelligence acts, not desire. Mind Without Measure, p 18
To end thought I have first to go into the mechanism of thinking. I have to understand thought

completely, deep down in me. I have to examine every thought, without letting one thought escape without being fully understood, so that the brain, the mind, the whole being becomes very attentive. The moment I pursue every thought to the root, to the end completely, I will see that thought ends by itself. I do not have to do anything about it because thought is memory. Memory is the mark of experience; and as long as experience is not fully, completely, totally understood, it leaves a mark. The moment I have experienced completely, the experience leaves no mark. So if we go into every thought and see where the mark is and remain with that mark as a fact - 

then that fact will open and that fact will end that particular process of thinking, so that every thought, every feeling is understood. Krishnamurti on Education, pp 119-120
QUESTION - What does it mean to see the totality of something ?  Is it ever possible to perceive the totality of something which is moving ?
You understand the question ?  A good question ? Shall we do it together ?
As we said in the previous question in going into it, to perceive the totality of our consciousness, that consciousness is centred as the 'me', the self, the egotistic activity, self-centred movement, which is the totality of our consciousness.
Right ? Now can we see that completely ?  Of course we can. Is that difficult ?  That is, one's consciousness is made up of all its content. Right ?  Is that clear ?
That is, my jealousy, my nationality, my beliefs, my experiences and so on and so on and so on, that is the content of this thing called consciousness.
The core of that is me, the self. Right ? To see this thing entirely now. Right, sir ?  Can you do it ?  Of course you can.  Which means giving complete attention to it.

Again we rarely give complete attention to anything. Now we are asking each other: give complete attention to this content which is at the very core of the self. The self, the 'me  is the essence of that, and give attention to it, and you see the whole, don't you ?
Now the questioner says also, which is interesting, which is, is it ever possible to perceive the totality of something which is moving?  Is the self moving ? Is the content of your consciousness moving ?  It is moving within the limits of itself.  Right sir ? Are you following all this ?  Am I talking to myself ?
Sir, look, what is moving in consciousness ?  Attachment, the fear of not being attached, the fear of

what might happen if I am not attached ?  Which is what?  Moving within its own radius, within its own limited area. That you can observe. So you can observe that which is limited. I want to go into this a little bit, don't be shocked. Is our consciousness with its content living ? You understand my question ? Are my ideas living ? Your belief living ? So what is living ? Are you following this?  One has an experience, pleasant, unpleasant, noble, ignoble, so-called enlightened - you cannot have experience of truth, of enlightenment - that's irrelevant.  So is the experience that you have had living ? Or the remembrance of that experience is living ?  Right ?  The remembrance, not the fact. The 

fact has gone. But the movement of remembrance is called what is living. You follow ? Come on, sirs, move. So the experience, which has gone, of course, that is remembered, that remembrance is called living. That you can watch, but not that which is gone. I wonder if you see this ?
So what we call living is that which has happened and gone. See, sir, what you are doing.  That which has gone and dead, our minds are so dead, and the remembrance of all that is called living.  That is the tragedy of our life.  I remember the friends we have had, they have gone, the brothers, the sisters, the wives that are dead, the mothers, I remember. The remembrance is identified with the photograph and the constant looking at it, remembering it, is the living. You understand, sir ?  And that is what we call living.

then you have a totally different kind of energy

In classical, ordinary meditation, the gurus who propagate it are concerned with the controller and the controlled. They say to control your thoughts because thereby you will end thought, or have only one thought. But we are inquiring into who the controller is. You might say, It is the higher self, “It is the witness”, “It is something that is not thought”, but the controller is part of thought. Obviously. So the controller is the controlled. Thought has divided itself as the controller and that which it is going to control, but it is still the activity of thought…
So when one understands that the whole movement of the controller is the controlled, then there is no control at all. This is a dangerous thing to say to people who have not 

understood it. We are not advocating no control. We are saying that where there is the observation that the controller is the controlled, that the thinker is the thought, and if you remain with that whole truth, with that reality, without any further interference of thought, then you have a totally different kind of energy. This Light in Oneself, p 32
Is forgiveness love ? What is implied in forgiveness ? You insult me and I resent it, remember it; then, either through compulsion or through repentance, I say - I forgive you. First I retain and then I reject. Which means what ? I am still the

central figure  it is I who am forgiving somebody. As long as there is the attitude of forgiving it is I who am important, not the man who is supposed to have insulted me. So when I accumulate resentment and then deny that resentment, which you call forgiveness, it is not love. A man who loves obviously has no enmity and to all these things he is indifferent. Sympathy, forgiveness, the relationship of possessiveness, jealousy and fear—all these things are not love. They are all of the mind, are they not ? The First and Last Freedom, p 233
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Follow by Email