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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Understanding is made of thought.

2) Thought is the source of suffering.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Though he distanced himself from Theosophy later in his life — Ciceronianus the White

Early twenties, upon coming to adulthood.

it seems he never denied what they said he was — Ciceronianus the White

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

I await reprimand for pedantry and cynicism and other even more reprehensible traits. — Ciceronianus the White

Ha, ha! Consider yourself spanked.

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

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

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

1) Understanding is made of thought.

2) Thought is the source of suffering. — Hippyhead

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did he? I stand corrected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

real criticism is required; not acceptance — J. Krishnamurti

And then...

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

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

I guess everybody has to start somewhere.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where does mysticism come in, in this?

Any ideas?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do you think this is? — TheMadFool

I don't.

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

Did you read my post?

I don't. — unenlightened

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

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

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

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

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