I Hate Krishnamurti: The nature of the trap
Sorrow is the result of a shock, it is the temporary shaking up of a mind that has settled down, that has accepted the routine of life. Something happens - a death, the loss of a job, the questioning of a cherished belief - and the mind is disturbed. But what does a disturbed mind do? It finds a way to be undisturbed again; it takes refuge in another belief, in a more secure job, in a new relationship. Again the wave of life comes along and shatters its safeguards, but the mind soon finds still further defenses; and so it goes on. This is not the way of intelligence, is it?No form of external or inward compulsion will help, will it? All compulsion, however subtle, is the outcome of ignorance; it is born of the desire for reward or the fear of punishment. To understand the whole nature of the trap is to be free of it; no person, no system, no belief can set you free. The truth of this is the only liberating factor - but you have to see it for yourself, and not merely be persuaded. You have to take the voyage on an uncharted sea.
Book of Life - July 22nd
posted by serrabisco @ 7/22/2008 11:21:00 da manhã
3 Comments:
http://www.manasjournal.org/pdf_library/VolumeXII_1959/XII-48.pdf
Krishnamurti's concept of freedom kind of reminds the ancient one, that is being capable and able to accept the destiny, that means to decide by your own will and to face up every challenge the destiny brings and subjects you to.
You punk!
Then you talk about destiny more as "chance" that what is defined to happend. I like that.
What about sending me an email talking about you? That would be frantastic :)
You you
nice thing that manasjournal. Lot of nobel writings. I'll explore
That is a good point you made. The modern understanding of destiny is usually close to what we call "determinism", but that is from the archaical point of view, indeed, nonsense. Of course, there are much stronger powers which influence human lives a lot, but that does not mean, humans can not act freely. Sometimes even prophecy in general is considered to be a kind of deterministic speech, but that is very far from the ancient perspective, since their character was above all foggy and thus multivalent. Indeed one can mention the tragedies of all the big drama classics such as Sofokles, Aischylos and Euripides, the fact the prophecies uttered in they plays were of deterministic nature, but again this didnot stop any of the heroes acting freely. Imho one of the message of this plays is that there are much stronger things behind human freedom, that always even you try to do your best you are still in the hands of gods' will.
Back to your comment. Thus sometimes it is close to what you call "chance", but sometimes it is not. Isn't it free to entirely and internaly accept higher and stronger "laws" of the world, although there are many moments in your lives when we are strongly against them?
Gosh. I hope this is not such crap as it might seem...
Enviar um comentário
<< Home