Homepage: www.Rezamusic.com |
Band: www.Rezangela.com |
Journal: www.Rezajournal.com |
Videos: www.RezaTV.com |
Music Downloads: iTunes, etc. |
Commentaries on
the work around J. Krishnamurti’s work, etc.
June 2009 By Reza Ganjavi
Main
site: www.rezamusic.com
Journal:
www.rezajournal.com
Band:
www.rezangela.com
Videos:
www.rezatv.com
“FREEDOM
FROM FEAR” AND IRANIAN ELECTIONS
K’s
WORK DOESN’T BRING PARALYSIS
MY
RELATIONSHIP WITH FRIEDRICH GROHE
LIMITS
OF THINKING (AND ON QUOTES)
The last set of “Notes on the work around K’s work” was published end of last year. I never know what will be in the next edition or if a next edition would even exist. But enough material came together to justify this release. The article below was written over a long period on a very-low-priority basis because I’ve been managing several information technology projects, playing in a wonderful band www.rezangela.com, and doing other activities, while keeping the eye on the sacred, that emptiness, the vast wisdom which heals the mind, that vast energy which heals the body, and this love which is the essence of all being.
It’s no
secret that KFA has
gone through a lot of changes.
They moved buildings, laid off some staff (I don’t know how well they
handled
it in terms of notice period, severance pay, etc.), closed the retreat,
re-opened
it, Mary Z passed away;… Mary Z’s house has become part of the
foundation, K’s house
has turned into a quiet room, the foundation lost
a lot of money in the stock market (I told them a long time ago not to
trust
their broker), thankfully a trustee who was not fit for the job is
finally
gone, remaining trustees seem quite active, even the newsletter seems
more
vital though not too tactfully it was distributed by “fundraising”
department. Just got news of “the
first Ojai Krishnamurti Film Festival”.
The most
significant new development is the fact that K’s
work
is now officially available online free of charge at http://jkrishnamurti.com/.
That was a
smart move towards keeping the integrity of the teachings intact in
light of
numerous sites which published unauthorized copies of the work, and I
believe
this was a collaborative effort between different foundations. A friend
who
visited the site recently, a newcomer to K, said: “I
love the
page. It’s not just reading it, you read it, and then it starts. I
really like
this guy, he’s amazing.” (for
more quotes about K see:
http://home.datacomm.ch/rezamusic/jk_ref.html
)
As I
understood it, K was not keen on organizations, but these minimal
organizations
were necessary to carry on the publications, and so on. Organizations
have
people and where there’s
people there is politics, and
KFA is no exception.
Politicians go with the wind –
friends can become enemies, and vice versa, overnight. There was some
internal
discontent within KFA a
few years ago – a lot of
politics and power play. It all seemed so silly to me and contrary to
the
spirit of cooperation K proposed. It also appeared mostly a case of
clashing
personalities, and oddly enough, by those who have done very little in
their
lives outside the K-circle. Sometimes it seems the “mirror of
relationship”
necessary for refinement needs to be one from a non-protected
environment.
I naively
complemented
a director in a past publication, only to face opposition from those
who didn’t
like him. Right or wrong, it seemed the foundation wasted energy in
deal with such
friction but now it's pretty cool.
This era
that follows K’s death
is special in that the
foundations have to cater to some who were very close to K, and those
who have
been in these organizations most of their lives. But in the next 50 to
100
years this will all change. The personal grips on power will give way
to more
objective management, the foundations will change form, and may even
disappear
after all the work is published, and the schools will thrive as more
people
realize the value of the very precious, holistic education, which K
proposed.
The latest
financial shakeup led to a big inner revolution which on the face of it
seems
positive – the organization seems to have found a new creative energy.
They
seek new trustees and I proposed the following friends as nominees on
I met Dr. Harshad Parekh
in
Unlike so
many people I’ve met in the West who are confused about K and delight
in having
missed the boat and engage in K-bashing instead, Dr. Parekh
says, for example, “what he says seems obvious”. Obviously! K is not
rocket
science (see Appendix of http://home.datacomm.ch/rezamusic/kli_kinfonet_link.html).
In
Here’s
another little gem from Dr. Parekh
on his experiences
with Krishnamurti and his teachings:
http://home.datacomm.ch/rezamusic/k_harshad_parekh.html
You might
ask what K has to do with the Iranian elections. This is the first time
that
I'm feeling a little bit excited about Iranian politics since the
Revolution.
Mousavi
is the main contender against Ahmadinejad
and many
political analysts believe, given the expected high turnouts, if there
is no
cheating, Mousavi will
win. He is an artist and
architect and his wife is a sculptor and scholar and has several
advanced
degrees including a PhD. I read a story today that a man asked Mr. Mousavi about marrying his
daughter. The first question Mousavi
asked him was, what
books
have you read. So he is obviously a book fan. On the other hand, there
are many
many K books translated
into Farsi and are sold in
bookstores across
To hear an
Iranian political figure speak about freedom from fear is very
soothing, and
just makes me wonder, if him, like so many other intellectuals in
“FROM THE VERY
first day and during
these gatherings I hope we are going to be very serious. Most of us, I
am
afraid, have come with a sense of holiday spirit, to look upon the
hills and
mountains, the green valleys and the flowing streams, to be quiet, to
meet
friends, to gossip, to have a little fun which is all right but if we
are to
get any worthwhile meaning out of these gatherings we ought to be very
serious
from the beginning.” JK,
(
The reasons
for writing this are:
“Dear Reza,
Thank you for the
attached circular which you sent me four months ago.
I very much enjoyed reading it and apologize
for the delay in thanking you. In
it you
mentioned that you would send separately your comments on the gathering
in Murren last summer,
at which we met. If
it is prepared, I would appreciate
receiving it…”
I am not in
the best position to write about the 2008 gathering because I was not
there for
the entire two weeks but almost half of it, due to other obligations.
So what I
write here is only the snapshot from that perspective. I have been to
several
previous gatherings, and have lots of notes which might one
day may go in an article or a book.
There is
unconditional goodwill and positive feelings for everyone that is
implicitly or
explicitly mentioned in this article. Management Science students know
that
sometimes people are put in the wrong roles and that is more often the
issue
than personalities.
I don’t
have time to edit this professionally and as it was written over a very
long
period, there are some duplication of ideas (forgive me).
In the
first summer after K’s
death (1986) the tourist office
said people are still coming to hear K speak, “don’t you have someone
to replace
him?” K specifically didn’t want anyone to represent him but the group
was
brought together to watch videos, discuss, etc..
The
rest is history.
I have gone
to these gatherings for many years. When K was alive, I went to his
talks in
Many years
I went the entire time, some years just part time because of work, like
this
year [2008] when I was flying back and forth between
I never
gave the gathering the kind of importance its organizers tout. Simply
put, you
can not go to a mountain-top to find truth. Exploration and integration
of
essential truths in daily life is necessary. It is a fact that some get
their
only exposure to K during these gathering.
The
gathering is wonderful but that by itself does not mean much. Any group
for any
reason that go to the
mountains for a couple of weeks
in the summertime will have a wonderful time. We arrived the day before
the
gathering started and saw a group of Buddhists at the hotel who were
just
finishing a retreat. (I think they were meat-eating). They looked like
they had
a wonderful time and were hugging goodbye.
These
gatherings are always wonderful at a certain level specially if you
don’t go to
all the meetings and don’t get to see first hand the kind of confusion
some
people are engaged in and its effect on others. There are instances of
freedom
and insight in the hearts and minds of some participants but they also
bring
their misery and suffering there. This is not an image but a fact. It’s
not a
judgment and it doesn’t make the gathering good or not good. We don’t
have to
judge it as a binary event. It just is.
A person
who’s truly happy may have a hard time surfing those waters because of
the
complications those conditions present, such as one who can look at you
in the
eye and tell you you’re confused when you feel deep inside your heart
that
you’re happy, deep inside your brain that you’re clear: you can think
clearly,
you can reason logically, your thought can see its own limitation and
has
learned, is learning, not to go where it does not belong.
It is
possible to have clarity but there are some old-timers in these
gatherings who
insist that it is not, and they quietly criticize K for it, while this
guy shed
so much light on what-is, and opened up the root causes of so many
crucial,
concrete areas that cause injuries to the mind, such as image making
which is something
that many struggle with – to see the beauty of going around with no
image of
yourself, of others, of others’ image of you and themselves, and so on,
but at
these gatherings, not only that is treated as some sort of esoteric
theory by
some, they contend that if you say something like that you’re just
repeating K.
When one
doesn’t
see one thinks another doesn’t either – it makes sense! And on the
other hand,
in daily life, you have conversations with a youngster who’s struggling
with
certain subjects in his or her daily life and these insights open up so
many
doors for him or her and he sees and he lives it and it’s a fact. Some
have
made a burden out of K, and then blame him for being the burden. The
problem is
not K, but the burden-maker.
Speaking
about old-timers, some of them are quite extraordinary. There was a
lady who
used to come from
The
gathering was in Murren,
a very small village in
Swiss Alps. You get there by train then cable car then train. No cars
are
allowed but some locals have cars. Murren
is a
village infiltrated by Americans. It’s close to Interlaken, which is
where I
bet 9 out of 10 American tourist who comes to Switzerland go. It has a
spectacular view of the Eiger
mountain, a giant rock,
which I heard takes more victims of rock climbing than any other
mountain
except
There is
something intrinsically good in coming together for exploring
fundamental
questions of living although those questions are not always phrased in
the best
way in these gatherings. Over the years, the themes selected have been
sometimes criticized.
The main
reason themes were being used, was for publicity, so people have an
idea about
a subject, and it’s not just a gathering with no subject. Some years
the themes
were really weak and contained logically inconsistent and contradictory
clauses. This year’s theme had its own share of obscurity. In one
meeting
discussing the theme, one organizer said the theme was a co-organizer’s
idea, passing
on the blame :) – the co-organizer has talked numerous times over the
years
about her confusion in the meetings I don’t know why she’s being put in
the
role of a philosophical consultant. She has many other good qualities,
organizational skills and things she’s I’ve learned from her.
I am not
sure how helpful these themes are. I never liked the theme books anyway
as they
just seem to be a movement in specialization within K’s
work which is general and holistic. Most people have been coming for
years, and
new comers are usually familiar with K's
work and the
themes he addresses anyway. These inadequately devised themes have just
caused
a lot of unnecessary discussion and confusion. 2009’s theme seems to be
taken
out of a K talk – if you can’t come up with a good theme at least take
a good
quote. Good move.
I think it’s worth trying to have no theme one year. K didn’t have pre-devised themes in his talks either (which doesn’t mean he should be followed)…
There are
plenty of hotels in Murren.
The first trip we stayed
at an Eiger hotel –
every hotel seems to be called Eiger
this or Eiger that :) –
The
second trip, Sportchalet
where the group was staying
was full so I went to a hotel next door. A
beautiful and
clean and quiet hotel. And negotiated a good price :-) –
it worked. Some
of the other hotels have misleading price signs – they advertise a
price that
is not really true.
The chalet
is run by Guenter, a
very nice, friendly gentleman
and the cleanliness and service were first class. The atmosphere was
wonderful
and the view, breathtaking.
One K
scholar noted a change over the years, for the better, and I know what
he means
because I perceived the same thing. That “philosophical weakness” has
flowered
into a lot more sensibility.
On the
practical side, the organizers’ have been mildly flexible at trying
different
approaches. Although this is
A bold
approach would be to have people come together, have video showing and
book
reading, and have sessions to discuss questions. In addition, have
people
present special topics they're passionate about - as is done presently
-
regarding schools for example – as well as other social activities. Do
away
with “helpers” but keep having real facilitators and see what happens.
By real
facilitators I don’t mean those who think talking the most is the role
of the
facilitator.
In the old
days there was a lot of resistance to lecturers. The best of people
were put on
the pedestal and destroyed. That went away and panels came. A few
panels were
absolutely disastrous because of poor selection. And you still get
boring
speakers sometimes. Very few are vibrant and those who are,
are not good fits for the organization because they’re too independent.
The
organizers have a big role and I think the guiding theme should be
“less is
more”.
Last year
(2007 gathering), was the first year that I did not go to summer
gathering in
Switzerland since 1993, because the letter I wrote about KLI
had upset an organizer who had not even read the letter but had gone by
hearsay
and wanted to “defend Mr. Grohe”
(she made a public
reference about this so it’s no secret). That hearsay was the topic of
entertainment at the gathering according to a friend who was there. In
a way I
was not surprised at this because I know
:
a) A lot of
times people don’t think for themselves, specially if they don’t have
higher
education – it’s much easier to go by hearsay and second-hand
information than
to find something out for oneself or take the time to read something
before
formulating an opinion (this does not mean those with higher education
can
necessarily think for themselves but the chances are higher);
b)
Historically, gossip is prevalent in these gatherings (and probably
every form
of human gathering) specially
by those regulars who
admit to being confused. Gossip seems to be a favorite form of
entertainment:
it doesn’t take any particular skills and it doesn’t have to pass the
test of
truth. That was indisputably the case in the 2007 Gathering -- as we’ve
witnessed in several other years where a topic, a person, or a couple,
becomes
the subject of gossip – specially
if 2 weeks in the
mountains gets boring. One year it’s the man who comes from Russia with
multiple women, one year it’s a guy who meets a girl and their
happiness is not
something to be tolerated by the heavy force of jealousy veiled in
consideration; one year it’s a letter someone wrote, and some years,
there’s
nothing, but clearly, you can see, the few gossiped-brains looking for
a
subject to keep them entertained – and interestingly, they’re sometimes
the
same persons who complain about hitting psychological brick walls and
confusion
in their lives.
c) On
various occasions I’ve heard of friends who are not interested in
gossip,
complain about the amount of nonsense they’re exposed to by people
going around
soliciting opinions about others because they’re not “educated” enough
to think
for themselves or not
consider these subjects
important, and this gathering has a good share of this theme.
JK: “chattering,
chattering either chattering inwardly, or outwardly
always talking, indulging in gossip... And this chattering obviously
indicates
a form of laziness; because you have nothing to do, you talk about
somebody
else…”
d) it’s
always easier when someone is not there- typical characteristic of
illusion
which remains and sustains in darkness and dissipates when inquiry is
made into
what is the
The same
pre-judgments
may occur with this article but hopefully not, and hopefully, before
reacting a
person will take the time to read the entire article but many in this
world are
too impatient and have too many images and pre-judgments to not jump
into a
conclusion too quickly. K’s
discussion on the role of
conclusions on the psyche is very interesting.
There are a
couple of ladies who always want to do their “dirty laundry” in public
and
easily burst into tears. There are K-worshippers, and those who’ve been
at this
for so many decades but still are confused by concepts like
psychological time,
who’ve complained year
after year about being utterly
confused and even have a deep yet often hidden antagonism towards K.
These
folks, I try to avoid in dialogue groups. The list goes on and as much
as
images are destructive, I learned that it’s very practical to simply
avoid some
people in dialogue.
- Are you
sure it’s not physical? The brain is physical.
He seems out
of shape. How about changing the diet and doing some stretches, and
dropping
the socially acceptable drugs people consume? How about regular walks?
How
about studying this work like a school subject instead of a few videos
once a
year? How about taking a few books and living and loving and sleeping
with and
exploring the questions in daily life, not just once a year in the
mountains.
We don’t need mountains to explore.
This is
from a video shown in Murren
2008. K often talked
about being an outsider. Traditionalists, including some people in the
K
circles and even foundations don’t like that idea. This one sheds a new
light
on it:
Another one
once told me she’s been dreaming that I am her angel and we were made
for each
other. Say what? The thought had not even occurred once in my mind and
I had
zero interest in her beyond respect for her as a fellow human being.
Another
old lady made an overture once which was pretty surprising. And if you
happen
to complement a someone
that is sometimes taken as a
sexual overture and carries obligations. It feels like
And so on
and on – a whole book can be written about “Saanen
Affairs” perhaps but it’s unimportant. The important thing is, people
there are
a cross section of society and some take their jealousies,
possessiveness,
suffering, and other conditionings with them and impose that on others.
A woman
who could not possess a man she wanted, made sure he didn’t become any
one else’s
either, and sometimes these power-plays became brutal, and the dynamics
and
story lines, intriguing. Year after year of this, a sub-group of ladies
who are
regulars have their dynamics which is best to stay away from. A friend
joked:
“I'm surprised the Murren
ladies mafia didn't have a
public hanging.” :)
Participatory
concert is a lot of fun. Usually a group of Spanish participants
prepare a
wonderful performance, and there are other musicians, etc., and the
event has a
very good spirit. This year I sang a couple of songs with well
participation of
the audience.
Random
notes from Dialogue groups:
- We didn’t
go to the morning dialogue in pre-assigned random groups and instead
took a
nice hike and dialogued with the mountains, streams, and glacier.
- Raman set
the stage well:
Process is more
important than content.
Relate in
impersonal way, but can say personal things.
Listen and also
hear and feel what we hear.
Don’t
immediately jump when there’s a natural pause.
Self
–facilitation.
And we
added some points like this is not psychotherapy; no dirty laundry.
- All it
takes is one of the clueless worshippers to be in one of these randomly
assigned dialogues to mess up the whole thing. Unfortunately, over the
years,
I’ve developed a mental black list of whom
I will
avoid having a dialogue with. It’s a very practical image.
- A friend told
me after the Friday dialogue: “Thank you. You helped me.” It’s all
there in the
books but clearly people have not bothered to study deeply.
- Sunday
dialogue, 18 people in a room, intensity, several serious, insightful
people. Good
flow of the topic. I asked what is it that prevents observation of
disorder as
observation/understanding disorder seems to be the key to order: noise,
lack of
quietness, lack of energy, wasted energy through conflict and stupid
ways of
living… There was a
facilitator but he
had to do very little as the group self-facilitated. Gopal
was a good addition to the group – he helped our fire pick up. After
the
dialogue the facilitator said, “pity
you won’t be here
the whole week”. And an Indian man said: “good dialogue – good group”.
There are
some participants who have obviously delved deeply into philosophy
& self
knowledge, are studious and have a good exposure to K’s
work. These folks are always a delight to speak to..
Among the
wise are also often new comers. Not just in this but also other
gatherings,
I’ve met newcomers who come to this without the burden of personal
worship,
comparison, and without a bundle of self-pity and a big-self which
prevents
understanding. They come with fresh questions and a fresh outlook and
often
have a much easier time understanding K than many so called old-timers.
There are
occasionally folks who were close to K. This does not always guarantee
wisdom
and in fact as Mary Lutyns
wrote in her biography of
K, sometimes these people are worse as they get too caught in the
personality
of K and miss the boat. There are a number of such examples, and some
do come
to the gathering, and usually given a facilitator rule by virtue of
having been
close to K, which sometimes means nothing.
I have
often learned things in these gatherings by talking to wise folks, from
what
they know or in exploring together.
Gerard had
a good line talking about pleasure: “If it comes, take it. Don’t look
for it.”
Indians
also enjoy a special privilege – it’s kind of a positive prejudice,
which is
shallow and echoes the movement in Western psyche which fell so hard
for Indian
gurus. That fascination still goes on in the West and I only attribute
it to
spiritual poverty.
Nevertheless, there are a few folks from India who have come to this gathering in the past who have brought a lot of wisdom – off hand I can think of Professor Krishna, Rajesh Dalal, Satish Inamdar, and G. Gautama, and several others, specially some years ago when Friedrich used to invite more people from India. What a great guy. Their wisdom best flourished in conversations.
The founder
of KLI is present in
these gathering and he’s a
delight. He does not go to every meeting and I assume he gets the
feedback from
his staff. I sometimes wonder if he ends up hearing about the utter
confusion
of some of these folks, specially old-timers and some of the subtle
movements
which are very interesting, and sometimes quite painful to be with
first hand.
In the last
years KLI has increased
its involvement in the
gathering’s events with some KLI
members taking a
leading role as a facilitator or panel member. I have no problems with
this and
welcome the presence of someone like Raman who’s a delight to be with.
But
sometimes it feels “new blood” is good. Also, implicitly, by the virtue
of
their organizational membership, some KLI
members are
viewed as being in a position of seniority (authority would be too
strong of a
word) so they have to be extra careful in not interpreting K. A past
issue of
the Link had a tedious treatise by Javier about interpretation. No
matter how
it’s justified, there is a clear line between interpretation and
expression of
one’s understanding
and K discussed this on some occasions
clearly.
I like X on
a personal level – X’s sweet – but being part of this powerful group
who is
always put in a facilitation role during these meetings, these folks
have to be
more careful. On several occasions I heard X speak in the context that
“this is
what K meant by this”, instead of a more humble and less interpretive
approach
of “this is how I understand it”.
The
movement is what interests me and made me notate this. The
movement that “K talks about some esoteric, unreachable state which was
for him
but not for me”. This
is a very
dangerous line of thought. It is a comforting as one doesn’t have to be
bothered with challenges that can shake one up deep inside.
In response
to a “X” but makes big
statements sometime that are
not so.
There is a
practical aspect of individuality. We have
clothes, home, and a name – but is
it possible to walk
through daily life and not have this sense of me all the time? For the
brain to
be quiet and see how that sense comes about, in relationship, as it
arises.
When thinking learns its limits, it doesn’t go where it doesn’t belong
– when
it does step out of boundaries it creates the self and with that
automatically
there’s separation – you can not manage it.
The
movement to make these concepts as extreme, unreachable states,
is the same movement as putting K on a pedestal, and the same movement
of
shooting him down. Let us forget about those states which are not. Let
us
forget about enlightenment if we don’t feel enlightened in this moment;
and if we
do, the question is irrelevant. And an irrelevant question, when asked
only
poses more blocks for a psyche which by virtue of habit has a tendency
to be in
sorrow.
The quality
of mind that wants to achieve a result is the negation of it. K talks
about
benediction and so on. If a person wants to achieve that as an ideal,
that urge
prevents understanding of what is, which is necessary for change. But
he also
talked about other things such as the importance of negating that which
is not
love.
I much
prefer books to videos. Videos are sometimes too slow. With a book you
can
easily mark it up, go back, go forward, re-read a paragraph or sentence
until
it’s understood, read the questions in the next chapter before putting
it away,
look at the index, take it to bed, live and love and breath it. A video
is much
more restrictive. You have to go at the pace that he goes according to
a very
slow audience sometimes.
The panel
was painful. A panel is as good as the members you put on it. It was
put
together spontaneously after “Y” cancelled the talk (thank God, as his
talks
have always been boring despite the adoration of the priest-making
folks who
love to be lectured at).
The panel
did not do a good job of clarifying the question, the theme of the
week, which
was not very clear and semantically needed a lot of clarifications.
Instead,
the panel spent a lot of time on peripheral subjects. They accepted
visitors so
I joined in for a short couple of minutes. The organizer and panel
agreed that
the word individual was not properly used or at least it was used
contrary to
the meaning that K consistently gave it. Secondly, they agreed with my
proposal
that the question really is meant to ask “what are the mechanisms of
division
and separation?”, and “what is the mechanism of the self”, how it comes
to existence. . . and
the fact that thought is the clear building
blocks of the self. Nobody had talked about thought the whole hour.
The
organizer said we go slowly with preparation. How much preparation? One
hour
into a discussion and the role of thought which is the core of the
problem of
sense of separation was not mentioned once, and it is such a central
theme in K’s work as I
understood it. It seems that thought creates
the self, and thought, applied to where it doesn’t belong, creates
problems. Psychological
thought creates fear, insecurity, etc..
The older lady
in the panel, one of the ones I refuse to go in a dialogue group with
because
they’re a network of confusion and pain, went on and on about her
misery and
confusion. It made me want to cry again hearing these people who have
been at
this for decades, so utterly confused and unhappy. But it’s clear as
day that
this is absolutely not K’s
fault, although many try
to blame him. I have conversely seen, know, and have talked to many
people, who
have smelled the perfume and the perfume has made the difference of
night and
day.
I am
reminded of an email discussion with a
old timer who
no longer goes to these gatherings. She spoke about the group as a
caravan. I
don’t know if a caravan can ever arrive at truth? Sure doesn’t seem
like it.
One has to be alone, all-one, swift, unburdened, to look. And this can
happen
in dialogue with other like-minded people so it’s not an isolate
process, but a
caravan, specially one where some of the drivers are so caught in their
caffeine, wine, and self-pity :) ,
or that is pulled
by a turtle, is a different story.
I pointed
out that our friend talked about this for 65 years. On the video this
morning K
talked to a man who’s been seeing his talks for 52 years and hadn’t
changed. We
were witnessing it first hand.
My friend
who is a new comer to this left before the meeting was over and I too
after 1.5
hours into it – quietly and unobtrusively as I was sitting in the back
anyway. Outside,
a dear wise friend and her psychologist daughter were there, and our
dear
friend from KFA, Eric.
He asked about the panel.
She
recalled “the <name withheld> panel” three years ago
where it was an
absolute disaster and confusion with a panel member being stuck on his
extreme
confusion. What’s the point of putting such extremely confused people
on
panels? Or the case of a psychologist
panel member who had
everyone utterly confused and yet he was invited back to lead panels
the
following year as well.
These kinds
of meetings make people more confused than to help them. Other people
walked
out of the room exhaling hard.
As a new
trend by organizers to lead people in inquiry, people were asked to
look at
their deep sense of isolation. That question by itself assumes that the
sense
of isolation is there. What if it’s not there?! Are
these “secretary turned psychoanalyst” type
questions really helpful to people. Some of them may be. It’s always
good to
get reminded to be aware of inner movements, but not when the question
is
assumptive of gloom, in the background of a human brain that’s already
burdened
with problems and sorrow.
I have also
talked to many people in daily life who have emotional/ psychological/
psychosomatic
wounds. Unlike approach of many psychologists who thrive at their
patients
remaining confused, swift insight can heal minds. I’ve witnessed it in
my own
and others’ lives. To lock oneself in a room for two hours hearing
sometimes
confusing statements, dirty laundry, and self-pity, has nothing to do
with K’s teachings nor
does it help heal minds.
Caffeine
and wine are habits that the authority of tradition deems as
unquestionable.
You know the whole story of stimulants and depressants, sugar,
caffeine,
alcohol, nicotine, and other substances that dull the brain and nervous
system
from being able to perceive that otherness. A subtle body, brain,
nerves are
essential. However, many drink their coffees here, get all revved up,
and then
sit there trying to unwind. Why wind up the body to begin with? Here’s
an old
compilation on K & coffee: http://home.datacomm.ch/rezamusic/k_on_coffee.html
And there
was a big box of empty wine bottles ready to be recycled outside the
door on
one of these gatherings. I guess it was by the Frenchman who had to
have his
fix everynight.
And a
friend comes, year after years, smelling like cigarettes. After all
these
years, and all my sermons :) he has not changed!
I am sure
“Y” is a good honest cultured man. He has emerged over the years as a
European
priest for people who used to worship K but now need someone else to
hang on
to. I say European, because there are Indian ones too. It’s so silly,
and of
course I am being sarcastic as he is officially not a priest but acts
like he
must deliver a long boring sermon, must talk, and some of what he says
does not
make sense, and he does not appear to get questioned on that because
people who
put him in that role are weak philosophically. I understood K to
specifically
not want to have any priests. [By the way, I do have respect for good
priests
who give a message of love and friendship to people].
I don’t
know much about his background other than he was a loner in school,
according
to one of his class-mates, and later, I suppose taught at one of K
schools.
He’s done a lot of good work translating K books and some years ago he
was
recruited to be part of the KLI
team. I don’t know if
he has other jobs than that. I have never had hard feelings for him
although I
disapproved at those who’d put him on a pedestal which he seemed to
enjoy, and
he played the role well, giving long boring talks. He has good
qualities, like
being well versed in literature, but it appears that having been put in
the
position of power in these gatherings – that look at him as a leader,
or rather
a helper, “to help us be together” – has got to his head. K’s
work doesn’t need any leaders. And also, being part of this powerful
organization, KLI, may
have got to his head. Raman is
also part of this group and it’s not got into his head.
On a number
of occasions I can cite but won’t, he gave
himself the
license to walk all over people. In Murren
2008 he
went totally out of line in one afternoon meeting where he was supposed
to be a
“helper”, a facilitator.
Facilitator’s
Role:
I am a
professional facilitator and get paid good money by companies for
facilitating
communications, listening, coordinating, managing, understanding a
problem and
letting it reveal the solution, consulting, analyzing needs, etc.. The
job of a
facilitator is best served when it’s minimal. In his case, “Y”
apparently sees
his role as a facilitator to be one who does most of the talking, and
then, if
someone challenges him, he strikes back in a defensive fashion with a
self-issued license to walk all over a person due to his position of
authority,
group leader, helper or whatever.
In one
instance, A guy who had not talked for the first 40 minutes of a
meeting said
some things and “Y” jumped all him for speaking too much while “Y”
himself had
consumed the majority of the airwave during that period and he was
meant to
have been a facilitator whose role is ideally one of less not more.
Under the “Y”’s verbal
lashes, the guy almost left the room but that
would have meant giving a cart blanch to “Y” to severe the dignity of
the
relationships and giving him even more power. He therefore told “Y”
that he
will shut up and asked “Y” to stop his attacks as a matter of respect
for
others as their time was being consumed on an unnecessary detour which
only
served as giving a subject to “Y” to keep on his ramble. The preacher
was so high
on his own sermon, engrossed in his own lecture, that he could not even
hear
the plea; and nothing could stop him. He took the matter public so
addressing
the chap’s
side
of the story in public is totally appropriate.
“Y”
appeared to have found importance in the friction and having found a
topic that
ensured his continuity as the central figure. Otherwise, just being a
facilitator would have meant, ideally, being nothing, quiet.
“Y” also criticized the guy
for having gone
part-time to the meetings. The fact is, not everyone goes to the
gathering for
the whole week, and “Y” himself had not gone to the whole week either.
The guy
was there in the beginning of the week and “Y” was not. Furthermore,
“Y”, over
the years, skips almost every social event, concert, etc., as well as
many of
the walks but the guy is much integrated into the social scene despite
some
years going part time.
After the
meeting a number of people spoke with the chap whom “Y” had attacked:
I don’t
think anyone told “Y” himself anything about being out of line, as ones
in a
position of authority are sometimes viewed as untouched, immune from
criticism,
and better left in their world of illusion. However, the guy showed up
just at
the right time when “Y” was speaking behind his back to a few others
and luckily
got the chance to listen in. The guy is a happy clear guy with a lot of
joy, rich
relationships, inward quietness, education, good job, money, talent,
etc., but
“Y” told him that “you are confused, you live a confused life”. I guess
if nobody’s
confused priests won’t have a role or would they? It sounded so
ridiculous
trying to convince a person who’s deeply happy that no, you’re not
happy,
you’re confused!
This whole
subject is important and interesting to me in so far as it demonstrates
once
again, our human habits and movements that occur after the death of a
great
thinker, how authority is formed, and its significance and consequences
on
psyches. I can recall an instance where once a guy was doing floor yoga
poses
on the only piece of carpet there was around; on a quiet afternoon when
no-one
was around; he was not on anybody’s way; he was not disturbing or
bothering
anyone; and “Y” walked by (or rather rode his high horse), and lashed
out at
the guy and scolded him for harmlessly doing stretches on that empty
un-traffic-ed space. He had no right to do so but apparently gave
himself that
right for the reasons mentioned above, and/or for another reason, or to
mimic K
who sometimes lashed out at people, I guess in his managerial role.
He declared
to be approaching dialogues from a Bohmian
perspective (Dr. David Bohm’s
work) of the sharing of
meaning by means of the words. But he projects his apparent difficulty
in
communicating and relating, onto others and therefore creating yet
another generalization
which only blocks people – that people can’t do – and if an exception
to his
stereotype comes along, he apparently insists that it can not be, which
is really a joke.
He uses Bohm’s notion of “flow of
meaning” which I understand to be
a nice, fancy phrase to mean “listen to each other with all your being
and your
heart and all your senses as well as ears, and be sincere and eager in
understanding what they’re saying, and at the same time, listen to your
own
prejudice, conclusions, inner noise, etc…”.
Communication
is not black magic or rocket science. The key is to understand and
allow those
factors that block it to be removed…factors such as psychological
thought,
image making, prejudice; fears born out of thought-time, wrong diet,
etc. etc.
“Y” asked at some point: “Do
k’s teachings paralyze
people?”
No, the
teachings
don’t paralyze – it’s the student and the so called leaders who bring
paralysis: The leader who talks about psychological walls, the
psychologist who
makes the patient more confused by his own confusion, and the student
who is
either incapable or unwilling to take a walk and smell that flower that
this is
pointed to. The incapability or laziness could be due to a person’s
diet, petty
addictions, quality of brain, lack of diligent study, wastage of
energy, cultural
conditioning, force of habit, the strength of the self,
or other factors…
Blaming K
is simply lame. It’s like a music pupil who complains about not
learning
anything because all he does is to go to lessons but never practices. K
is this
incredibly bright guy who came and pointed some things out and
clarified
several crucial, complex, deep issues that burden the human psyche – of
course,
it’s up to each person if that’s seen or not as this is a field which
scientific method can not be used as proof (and the attempt to do so is
exactly
why the discipline of psychology is still so primitive).
These
complaints about brick walls and other doom and gloom ideas that often
circulate gatherings are perhaps addressed by a statement K made in
1955: “But
if I see, not just superficially, but right through, that this very
occupation
of the mind with sorrow is the movement of the self which creates
sorrow…”.
The earliest
occurrence of the term “K world” that I can recall goes back to 1990’s
with a
letter Gopal wrote, a
satire piece if I recall
correctly, titled, “the key to the K world”. That phrase was used
regularly
within the KLI-Kinfonet
circle and elsewhere. The
most recent Kinfonet
circular (June 2009) had the
following phrase:
‘Find out
what's going in the
"K World" with our new and improved events calendar.’
This year
too, “Y” talked about the “K world”. The organizer reacted and talked
to me
instead of talking to “Y” who raised the idea. I guess “Y” is not to
receive
any feedback and must be left on his pedestal untouched :)
The
organizer said, “this is
not k’s
world”. She made a point of this on several occasions in Murren
2008: “this is not a group… there is no K world… we’re not Krishnamurti
people”.
Of course! Voila! I never liked that term any way and it’s about time
this
declaration was made. But the term won’t drop away, unfortunately
because
thinking in terms of tribes is a deep rooted habit in human psyche.
The first
weekend, a friend came along. She has read some K and has seen some
videos. As
a new comer to the teachings, like other eager new comers, she sees it
clearly
and the teachings per-se has had a big impact on her life already. She
was not
impressed with the group after hearing some old timers be so confused
and
complicated.
We did not
like the very long flute intro with the one-note-Indian-drown that went
on and
on. The flute is nice and a little bit of it is beautiful but when the
same
thing goes on and on and a single note for 15 minutes,
it is enough to drill any ear.
I will not
quote Nietzsche on the subject of amateur musicians.
Today, the
episode repeated and luckily I saw the drown machine before it started
and managed
to quietly exit. It was a good opportunity to run and take care of a
morning
chore. Came back and even had time for a whole-wheat croissant, and the
flute
was still continuing. It finally finished and the video started.
The music
or silence in the beginning of the morning meetings was an idea
introduced a
few years ago and these intro sessions were supposed to be short, no a
long
drawn thing.
But what’s
important is the friendship and love and there’s plenty of that.
In Bulletin
88 of the KFT, there is
a paragraph in promotion of
the mountain gathering, quoting a participant: http://www.scribd.com/doc/15599288/Krishnamurti-Foundation-Trust-Bulletin-88sept07
“we had brought
with us all of our cares, conflicts, ego, and over the course of the
week were
able to see it all dissolved in the beauty of the mountains and in the
glimpses
of the nature of human existence and all that it entails. Trying to
move beyond
the mechanistic nature of our habits poses a real challenge. By the end
of the
week the timeless nature of humanity at its problems seem to be
somewhat
lighter to bear on our shoulders. We have returned renewed and much
refreshed
to our daily work.”
Over the
years, we see the same folks come, year after year, and some are so
unhappy and
confused and they talk about it and return next year with the same
misery and
unhappiness. I am not saying they should change or criticizing them for
not
ending their misery, and not moving from confusion to clarity, from
unhappiness
to happiness. Each person’s case is different. However, the intriguing
about
the above paragraph is the idea that one brings worries, conflicts,
burdens,
habits, ego, to the mountains and apparently feel
some
release, and goes back to daily life into the same groove, and come
again for
another temporary fix the following year.
This is an
old habit of the human consciousness and the idea behind monasteries
which
every religion has some form of. As discussed above, Sometimes the
gathering is
posed as some sort of psychotherapy without using that word (as
discussed in
above section “one afternoon panel”).
Then the
question is, is a “temporary fix” a bad thing? That’s for each person
to
answer. Of course, the prudent person would want to understand their
miseries
in daily life. Same with the study of
K. I don’t think
it’s much value to just come for a week and watch three videos and
attend some
dialogues. Surely one can learn something but K deserves a thorough
study,
integrated with daily life, which obviously many simply do not bother
doing.
(Incidentally,
looking at the same site above I
noticed there are
many K books on there:
[2008]
Talking about Friedrich Grohe,
it may be good to say
a few words about our relationship. Someone asked me last week if I
work for
Friedrich. The answer is no, and I never have. I am a self-employed
musician
and IT consultant, management consultant, project manager, business
analyst,
and I have a long career in both music and computer science. I have
never
worked for Friedrich, never received money for anything except in 1993
when I
was invited by him to the gathering and he generously paid for our
expenses. I
have a very good relationship with him, although gossip-minds like to
think
otherwise. I have respect for people around him and consider some of
them close
friends. Some of them did not like how close I was with him and tried
in
various ways to cause a distance but our relationship persisted and
last time I
saw him, some months ago, we had a great talk – walk – hug – and
friendship.
Love is
something nobody can understand and nobody can take away. No doubt in
my mind,
he’s one of the topmost K scholars around, and I have tremendous love,
gratitude, and reverence for him. It’s only the gossip-minds who liked
to think
I was ever jealous of his organization or money. That
idea is
the biggest nonsense and absolutely false. I was and am
probably one of
the few people who have never had an eye on his money, and he knows
this. Every
rich man gets a lot of “flies around the sweet” but I am and have never
been
one. I have criticized certain aspects of his organization at times,
and
provided constructive suggestions some of which appear to have made a
difference.
------
It was
lovely seeing FG this
morning. We had a good chat and
maybe ones who tried to sour our contact to win points got to see that
our old
friendship and love is still strong.
This is not
a critique of The Link. I wrote a critique already (link below) and the
editions since then have improved (I am not saying that’s because of
what I
wrote). There are many wonderful pages in The Link, specially,
Friedrich Grohe’s
personal letters and amazing photographs, and
writings of K. In Link Issue 28, a couple of lines stood out in the
same spirit
of doom-and-gloom that permeates these groups which I talked about in
the Murren article
above and http://home.datacomm.ch/rezamusic/kli_kinfonet_link.html
.
“We are
fragmented human beings,
fragmented people, fragmented
selves. Faced with the
fact of fragmentation, we approach it as an idea, as a mental concept,
which
will always trigger an emotional response of one sort or another.”
All I can
say is, nonsense. Mr. Dimmock
can talk about himself but makes the mistake of talking about “we” as a
collective which is dangerous because there are exceptions, and those
exceptions are significant. Furthermore, that thought is often used as
a crutch
and cause for self-pity, confusion, and brick walls you hear about in
these
circles.
“For
Krishnamurti, who is even more
drastic, the self-image partakes of the nature of illusion. Yet, all of
us are
caught in it; to this extent, we are not free. To this extent, also, we
may be
said to have bad faith since our actions do not stem from truth, but
from the
sundry distortions involved in the self-image.” Stephen
Smith, July 2008
I am afraid
my old friend, “Mr. Smith” as K used to call him, is doing the same
thing Mr. Dimmock did
above: “All of us are caught… we are not free…”.
Simply not true. I fail to subscribe to these stereotypes which a) are
too big
to hardly be accurate; b) cause psychological burden as discussed two
paragraphs ago; c) forsake the art and realm of possibilities that
exist in
life.
Life’s much
easier without these pre-conceived psychological burdens promoted by
these
publications.
(Of course,
I will publish any response to the above comments in this space.)
To wrap up
this write-up, it’s appropriate to post a quote I just came across on
the
internet.
·
Quotes about mathematics
·
Quotes about music and arts - by Bach, Chopin, Beethoven, Schumann,
Pete Townshend, Santana, Menuhin, etc.
·
More quotes of wisdom - by DaVinci, Hegel, Michelangelo, Rumi,
Krishnamurti, Klee, Goethe, and others
·
Quotes on psychology-philosophy-education - by J.Krishnamurti
·
Quotes about guitar, music, etc. -by Angelo Gilardino
·
Quotes by Emerson
·
Quotes by F.M. Alexander & Moshe Feldenkrais
·
Quotes by Eleanor Roosevelt - words of wisdom
·
Quotes by Rumi - the great 13th Century Persian mystic-poet.
·
Quotes by Alan Greenspan
·
Daily life's one-liners - Some spontaneous sentences by Reza Ganjavi
·
Quotes by The Beatles, Lennon, McCartney...from some books I read years
ago etc.
·
Various great quotes - by Hemingway, Newton, Einstein, Tolstoy,
Thoreau, Bergson, etc.
·
Sayings of Dalai Lama - reportedly for the new millennium
·
Marcus Aurelius Meditations - selected quotes from the great Roman
philosopher and emperor
·
Quotes about life... - by Buddha, Zorro, Upanishads, Machiavelli,
various friends, etc.
Here’s the
cool new K quote:
"To know, to be
aware of the
limitation of thinking is the beginning of intelligence."
(First
Question & Answer Meeting at Brockwood
Park:
September, 1980)
It’s
refreshing how K can say the same thing in different ways, and freshly
each
time. Speaking to children he once spoke about the doors of heaven
getting open
when the mind/thought realizes its own limitation. I couldn’t find the
exact
quote, but here’s another goodie:
“So to
understand fear, you must
understand the place of thought - not stop thought. You can't do it.
You may
try to do it, but you can't stop thought. But if you can put it in its
right
place - not you - when thought puts itself in its right place, then it
has
understood, it knows its limitation, it knows its capacity to reason,
logic,
and so on, but in its right place, right? So we are asking: can thought
see
itself, its own limitation, its own capacity and say, this reason,
capacity has
its place and it has no place anywhere else?
… has
thought realised its
place? Meditate about it. Think
about it. Go into it. Give half an hour of your life to find out - not
half an
hour, give your life to find out. Because, then you will see for
yourself as a
human being who represents mankind, whose consciousness is the
consciousness of
humanity, when there is no fear in that consciousness you, who have
understood
and gone beyond it, change the consciousness of humanity. This is a
fact. So if
I may ask, have you learnt the art - has thought learnt the art of
putting
itself in its right place? Then, once it has done that, the doors of
heaven are
open. Heaven, you know. All right.”
J.
Krishnamurti,
Third Public Talk in
Just came
upon an interesting quote – added it to the chapter “The Myth of
‘Nobody Got
It’” on http://home.datacomm.ch/rezamusic/On-work-around-k-work-2008.html
K: "Is this possible to it this totally, the
gentleman asks who has heard me fifty two years. And do you know
anybody who
has done this. It would be impudent on my part - please listen -
impudent,
impolite, incorrect to
say I know somebody. What is
important is: are you now? Not do you know somebody. That is escaping
from
yourself when you say, 'Well show me somebody, a result.' The speaker
is not
interested in results. If he is then he will be disappointed, he will
be
exploiting, he will enter into quite a different world." J.
Krishnamurti Second
Public Talk in Saanen
K’s
insights into the nature of mind are tremendous. The future is unknown.
Any
projection into the future is based on past experience, the known. When
the
mind realizes this, and sees that its own activity is limited, it
naturally,
without force or coercion, quiets down. Then it’s open to meet the new
as the
new. It can further realize how its unnecessary, limited psychological
activity
causes division. The more it learns about itself the more it can be
free from
self-imposed walls, anxieties, worries, nervousness, fear, suffering,
and so
on. When the mind is freeing itself from this self-made turmoil, it can
be open
to another dimension. That mind naturally also takes care of the body
and does
not interfere with the body’s own intelligence. When
the
nerve/brain cells are fit, that other type of energy can be embodied in
the
nervous system. I never forget standing next to a 90 year
old man who
lived intelligently. He was full of a special kind of energy you could
feel,
but not something exclusive or esoteric that you and I can not have. We
can
have lots of energy, we
do have lots of energy, if we
don’t waste it, and if we live, an intelligent, holistic life.
Kind
Regards
Reza
Ganjavi
June 2009