Mam okrog DA in NE tole za povedat.

Če čisto prisluhnem svojem glasku, mi pravi, da je za vsakim NE zmeraj DA in obratno.

In všeč mi je tale misel:
"Skušaj vsemu reči DA in NE iskati pomoči od drugih."

Ampak, po moje, če imaš rad življenje, če veš kdo si, boš si tudi dovolil pomoč od 'zunaj' in tudi rekel NE, ko bo to potrebno oz. ko boš tako začutil.

tko nekako je ... posreduješ okuženo znanje, interpretirano, predrugačeno ... torej to u bistvu sploh ni več znanje ampak preprosto neznanje, moja resnica, ne pa Resnica ...

Univerzalno resnico zdej skušamo usvart tako, da nardimo en kompromis med različnimi egoti al pa da en al pa ena skupina egotov razgalsi svojo resnico za absolutno veljavno. To se dela s prepričevenjem, utemljevanjem, argumentiranjem, z zvijačo  al pa pa  z močjo avtoritete. Resnica se v vseh teh primerih umetno sproducira, da bi nečemu služila, ponavad enmu posamičnemu interesu. Tak način spoznaja resnice je utemlejn skoz našo kulturo in civilizacijo in pragmatično deluje pod pogojem, da se večina odpove možnosti absolutnega spoznanja resnice in ga pokrpa z enim subjektivnim, ki ga je ego še pripravljen sprejet kot za svojga.

Drug koncept je ta, da Resnica obstaja kot taka in v naprej dana, da se je nanjo samo treba znat 'priklopit'. Tle se med folkom ne šera več informacija o neki potencialni resnici, ampak znanje o tem kako se nanjo direkt priklopit s svojo celotno psihofizično strukturo, kolikor ti 'duša' dopušča pa prenese. Tako npr. mati ne prenašana otroka informacij o resničnosti, pač pa skoz ljubezen le  psihofično opremo za otrov  priklop na Resničnost, ki mora delovat čimbolj resnično, ko nje nebo več zraven kot zaščitnika  oz. filtra pred pohlepom  množice resnice željnih egov.

Seveda so vse kulture doselj ponujale tud svoja znanja in  načine priklopa na resnico na tak način, da so človeka ohranjlae v neki infantilni dobi in jim skoz religiozne sugestije nadomeščale tako mater  kot očeta. Kot človek mora razvit ego, če hoče odrast, prav tako ga je morala do konca razvit naša civilizacija, če se hoče religionoznega paternalizma pa njengovih zlorab znebit. Samo je vprašanje, kdaj pa kako se  bo ta nova kvaliteta v Resnico razvila. Zdaj smo po moje v fazi krize induvidalizma zard bombandiranosti z informacijami, ki jih ego enostavano ne more več sprocesirat v eno subjektivno resnico, v kateri bi se počutu domače in skatero bi se privezal na svet. Mediji so kot razlagalci resnice odpovedal, avtoritet ni,  za celovit preklop pa še ni vzpostavljenga totalnega medsebojnega zaupanja med tistim, ki kao vedo in tistimi, ki bi jim zaupal, da res vedo in da se lahko naučijo zvedet tud sami, če se zaupanju prepustijo...      

Jest mislm da je tud tale forum en taprav poskus, da se na odprt način šerajo ne tolk informacije  kot znanja, čeprav smo jih sproduciral v svojih egotih in kot taka niso popolna. Je velik že s tem narejen, da se te svoje nepopolnosti zavedamo pa da drug drgega spodbujamo, da jo presežemo. Udeleženci foruma kot odprta skupina nedvomno zgubljajo na medsebojni zauplivosti in s tem sugestibilnosti, ki je značilna za hermetično zaprte skupine z prenos ezoteričnih in psiholoških znanj. Vendar po moje to pomanjkljivost uspešno kompenziramo z univerzalno dospopnostjo in preglednostjo  svojega početja, ki ga je teže zlorabit in ki je prepričljiv prav zarad enega iskrenega čudenja v smislu: a ti tud, jest tud, men tud, nam tud...

Ker kot da ne znam napisat tako, da bi nekateri moje videnje, čutenje in/ali delovanje v povezavi z znanjem/vedenjem razumeli, bom probala pa še tkole:


Q: From our earlier talks with you it is evident that man has a wrong relationship with his knowledge of himself and the world. What exactly do you mean by knowledge?

U.G. Krishnamurti: Knowledge is not something mysterious or abstract. I look at the table and ask myself, "What is that?" So do you. Knowledge is just naming things. It tells you that that is a "table", that I "am happy" or "miserable", that "you are an enlightened man and I am not". Is there anything to thought other than this?

The knowledge you have of the world creates the objects you are experiencing. The actual existence or non-existence of something "out there" in the world is not something you can determine or experience for yourself, except through the help of your knowledge. And this knowledge is not yours; it is something which you and your ancestors have accumulated over a long time. What you call the "act of knowing" is nothing other than this accumulated memory. You have personally added to and modified that knowledge, but essentially it doesn't belong to you at all.

There is nothing there inside you but the totality of this knowledge you have accumulated. That is what you are. You cannot even directly experience the reality of the world in which you are functioning, much less some world beyond. There is no world beyond space and time. It is your invention, based upon the vague promises of the holy men. Our sense of value springs from the world as it is imposed on us. We must accept the world.

Q: These philosophical endeavors only seem to complicate things. Is it not possible to live simply with nature, to look at the clouds and trees ... ?

U.G. Krishnamurti:
The tree you are talking about cannot be captured by thought. If your thought structure cannot stop and frame its reflection of the tree, you have no way of looking at the tree at all. In other words, the tree is actually looking at you, not vice versa. I am not trying to mystify it. The important thing to see is the false separation between you and the tree, not who is looking at whom. Approaching the reality of the "positively" or "negatively", as the philosophers try to do, has no meaning. The gap, created by thought, remains, no matter what approach you take.

Thought has created all these divisions, making what you call experience possible. The man who has freed himself from all divisions in consciousness has no experiences; he does not have "loving" relationships, does not question anything, has no notions about being a self-realized man, and is not stuck on wanting to help somebody else.

What I am maintaining is that the whole problem has been created by culture. It is that that has created this neurotic division in man. Somewhere along the line man separated himself and experienced self-consciousness--which the other animals don't have--for the first time. This has created misery for man. That is the beginning of the end of man.

The individual who is able, through luck, to be free from this self-consciousness, is no longer experiencing an independent existence. He is, even to himself, like any other thing out there. What happens in the environment repeats itself within such an individual, without the knowledge. Once thought has burnt itself out, nothing that creates division can remain there.

While thought is taking birth, the disintegration or death of thought is taking place also. That is why it is not natural for thought to take root. Only by maintaining a divisive consciousness in man is thought capable of denying the harmonious functioning of the body. To cast man in religious or psychological terms is to deny the extraordinary intelligence of this wondrous body. It is the movement of thought that is constantly taking you away from your natural state and creating this division.

Is there any way for us to experience, much less share, reality? Forget about "ultimate reality"'; you have no way of experiencing the reality of anything. Experiencing reality "from moment to moment" is also a thought-induced state of mind.

Q: Listening to you is difficult for us, for what you are saying undermines the very basis of communication ...

U.G. Krishnamurti:
You cannot listen to anybody without interpretation. There is no such thing as "the art of pure listening." You can sit here talking for the rest of your life without getting anywhere. Without a common reference point--which is another invention of thought--how can you communicate and share? It is just not possible. There is nothing TO communicate anyhow.

You want to use communication to help you out of the mess you are in. That is your only interest. Getting out of your situation is your only aim. Why? Why do you want to get out of your situation? Wanting to get out of situations is what has created the problem in the first place. Wanting to free yourself from the burden is really the problem. I am not recommending anything; doing or not doing lead to the same end: misery. So doing nothing is no different from doing something. As long as you have knowledge about that burden--which I deny exists--you will have to struggle to be free of it. It cannot but do otherwise. Anything you do is part of the mechanism of thought.

Your search for happiness is prolonging your unhappiness.

Tut tlele se je tko zaštrikal debato, da lohk enak komentar prlimam, kot sem ga tle:

http://www.gape.org/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=prijateljstvo;action=display;num=...

In dodam, če se iztočnice topika držim,
da je nekoga znanje zgolj plod najrazličnejših informacij od vsepovsod in taiste osebe izkušenj.
Nič manj in nič več.
In zakaj bi bil pol nekdo čist "preč", če ga še kej več zastonj in u kokrkol že "prečiščenem" stanju dobi, al pa šera; u glavo, srce, al pa dušo?


ARS