HappySpirit.net -

[ideology.] An ongoing monologue on the ''hard won smatterings from the toolbox of becoming."

hi erika, lol. enjoyed the deep ass conversation my friend.


1930's ish.

Can we take one thing at a time and somewhat go into it? First, you lay a great deal of emphasis on the individual, but is not collective action necessary?” The individual is essentially the collective, and society is the creation of the individual. The individual and society are interrelated, are they not? They are not separate. The individual builds the structure of society, and society or environment shapes the individual. Though environment conditions the individual, he can always free himself, break away from his background. The individual is the maker of the very environment to which he becomes a slave; but he has also the power to break away from it and create an environment that will not dull his mind or spirit. The individual is important only in the sense that he has the capacity to free himself from his conditioning and understand reality. Individuality that is merely ruthless in its own conditioning builds a society whose foundations are based on violence and antagonism. The individual exists only in relationship, otherwise he is not; and it is the lack of understanding of this relationship that is breeding conflict and confusion. If the individual does not understand his relationship to people, to property, and to ideas or beliefs, merely to impose upon him a collective or any other pattern only defeats its own end. To bring about the imposition of a new pattern will require so-called mass action; but the new pattern is the invention of a few individuals, and the mass is mesmerized by the latest slogans, the promises of a new utopia. The mass is the same as before, only now it has new rulers, new phrases, new priests, new doctrines. This mass is made up of you and me, it is composed of individuals; the mass is fictitious, it is a convenient term for the exploiter and the politician to play with. The many are pushed into action, into war, and so on, by the few; and the few represent the desires and urges of the many. It is the transformation of the individual that is of the highest importance, but not in terms of any pattern. Patterns always condition, and a conditioned entity is always in conflict within himself and so with society. It is comparatively easy to substitute a new pattern of conditioning for the old; but for the individual to free himself from all conditioning is quite another matter. “This requires careful and detailed thought, but I think I am beginning to understand it. You lay emphasis on the individual, but not as a separate and antagonistic force within society. Now the second point. I have always worked for an ideal, and I don’t understand your denial of it. Would you mind going into this problem?” Our present morality is based on the past or the future, on the traditional, or the what ought to be. The what ought to be is the ideal in opposition to what has been, the future in conflict with the past. Nonviolence is the ideal, the what should be; and the what has been is violence. The what has been projects the what should be; the ideal is homemade, it is projected by its own opposite, the actual. The antithesis is an extension of the thesis; the opposite contains the element of its own opposite. Being violent, the mind projects its opposite, the ideal of nonviolence. It is said that the ideal helps to overcome its own opposite; but does it? Is not the ideal an avoidance, an escape from the what has been, or from what is? The conflict between the actual and the ideal is obviously a means of postponing the understanding of the actual, and this conflict only introduces another problem which helps to cover up the immediate problem. The ideal is a marvelous and respectable escape from the actual. The ideal of nonviolence, like the collective utopia, is fictitious; the ideal, the what should be, helps us to cover up and avoid what is. The pursuit of the ideal is the search for reward. You may shun the worldly rewards as being stupid and barbarous, which they are; but your pursuit of the ideal is the search for reward at a different level, which is also stupid. The ideal is a compensation, a fictitious state which the mind has conjured up. Being violent, separate, and out for itself, the mind projects the gratifying compensation, the fiction which it calls the ideal, the utopia, the future, and vainly pursues it. That very pursuit is conflict, but it is also a pleasurable postponement of the actual. The ideal, the what should be, does not help in understanding what is; on the contrary, it prevents understanding. “Do you mean to say that our leaders and teachers have been wrong in advocating and maintaining the ideal?” What do you think? “If I understand correctly what you say—” Please, it is not a matter of understanding what another may say, but of finding out what is true. Truth is not opinion; truth is not dependent on any leader or teacher. The weighing of opinions only prevents the perception of truth. Either the ideal is a homemade fiction which contains its own opposite, or it is not. There are no two ways about it. This does not depend on any teacher, you must perceive the truth of it for yourself. “If the ideal is fictitious, it revolutionizes all my thinking. Do you mean to say that our pursuit of the ideal is utterly futile?” It is a vain struggle, a gratifying self-deception, is it not? “This is very disturbing, but I am forced to admit that it is. We have taken so many things for granted that we have never allowed ourselves to observe closely what is in our hand. We have deceived ourselves, and what you point out upsets completely the structure of my thought and action. It will revolutionize education, our whole way of living and working. I think I see the implications of a mind that is free from the ideal, from the what should be. To such a mind, action has a significance quite different from that which we give it now. Compensatory action is not action at all, but only a reaction—and we boast of
action! But without the ideal, how is one to deal with the actual, or with the what has been?” The understanding of the actual is possible only when the ideal, the what should be, is erased from the mind; that is, only when the false is seen as the false. The what should be is also the what should not be. As long as the mind approaches the actual with either positive or negative compensation, there can be no understanding of the actual. To understand the actual you must be in direct communion with it; your relationship with it cannot be through the screen of the ideal, or through the screen of the past, of tradition, of experience. To be free from the wrong approach is the only problem. This means, really, the understanding of conditioning, which is the mind. The problem is the mind itself, and not the problems it breeds; the resolution of the problems bred by the mind is merely the reconciliation of effects, and that only leads to further confusion and illusion. “How is one to understand the mind?” The way of the mind is the way of life—not the ideal life, but the actual life of sorrow and pleasure, of deception and clarity, of conceit and the pose of humility. To understand the mind is to be aware of desire and fear. “Please, this is getting a bit too much for me. How am I to understand my mind?” To know the mind, must you not be aware of its activities? The mind is only experience, not just the immediate, but also the accumulated. The mind is the past in response to the present, which makes for the future. The total process of the mind has to be understood. “Where am I to begin?” From the only beginning: relationship. Relationship is life; to be is to be related. Only in the mirror of relationship is the mind to be understood, and you have to begin to see yourself in that mirror. “Do you mean in my relationship with my wife, with my neighbor, and so on? Is that not a very limited process?” What may appear to be small, limited, if approached rightly, reveals the fathomless. It is like a funnel, the narrow opens into the wide. When observed with passive watchfulness, the limited reveals the limitless. After all, at its source the river is small, hardly worth noticing. “So I must begin with myself and my immediate relationships.” Surely. Relationship is never narrow or small. With the one or with the many, relationship is a complex process, and you can approach it pettily, or freely and openly. Again, the approach is dependent on the state of the mind. If you do not begin with yourself, where else will you begin? Even if you begin with some peripheral activity, you are in relationship with it, the mind is the center of it. Whether you begin near or far, you are there. Without understanding yourself, whatever you do will inevitably bring about confusion and sorrow. The beginning is the ending. “I have wandered far afield. I have seen and done many things, I have suffered and laughed like so many others, and yet I have had to come back to myself. I am like that sannyasi who set out in search of truth. He spent many
years going from teacher to teacher, and each pointed out a different way. At last he wearily returned to his home, and in his own house was the jewel! I see how foolish we are, searching the universe for that bliss which is to be found only in our own hearts when the mind is purged of its activities. You are perfectly right. I begin from where I started. I begin with what I am.”

— a happy spirit

This is interesting.


— a happy spirit

part of a bigger thing being written,

but part of a thing that applies to other things- read: your life too, in some way.

This is a thought fragment- where-in I was writing part of my book , about my life- and happened upon an important common thread.

herein is the paste, if you can't see it you're not meant to read it yet,

:D yessir. i am literally just pondering the bio-chemistry of it, to confirm what i am seeing is what i am seeing.

because (for the last 14 years) i have had a sinus infection draining into my stomach holding my throat open.

(due to a car accident, getting jumped by four people, having to move an apartment entirely by myself and packing a 40 ft uhaul then driving it 500 miles and unpacking it all by myself.

lol so i basically got walking pneumonia from the complications from the rib injuries from the accident, and then re injured myself while moving, and yeah man.

never do that but i dont think this is a worry for you. lol

i literally feel healthier in the past 3 – 4 months day to day than I have felt day to day in the past 12 years prior. That is incredible progress, and literally is enough to make me cry daily, and I am blown away. I have worked day in and day out for nearly 12 years except days where I knew it would kill me to continue and my body needed a break.

#this has been hard won.

im good now, and my blood pressure has dropped to levels i dont even remember being able to feel, experience, or recall, i have been coughing out gently a brown putty that looks like silicon caulk, and feeling so goddamn relieved each time its like i just climaxed,

and drinking plenty of fluid, and getting plenty of rest.

i had no idea i was this sick for so long, and i am so beyond fucking blessed and fucking grateful to the spirit of not only the cannabis plant, but everything conspiring since 2005 to keep me alive, including my interminable will.

life is fucking crazy sometimes.

we have to keep going.

there are two kinds of people on this earth-

those who give up, and those who push beyond their limitations and mortal fear of death – to find new heights of creativity , to solve what we feared were our unsolvable dillemmas.

it is this character building, this experience, of having to do it yourself, of really having to get in there and shit- that for me makes the difference between someone who understands and can perhaps some day help someone else, and someone who is perhaps either not getting it yet, or using something like money, or worse, other people as a tool to accomplish the need their shortcoming creates, and has not been learnt by the person yet.

this is a thought in progress, like most of the things i am writing, but it is complete enough, and important enough, that i feel comfortable sharing this fragment with you.

its not done yet, please dont ask me about this- just wait for the finished thing, unless you have something to add.

one thing is for certain

i wake up happy now, for the first time (” “) in 12 years, daily now, instead of laying there for an hour or so in sheer amazement that I did not perish and die in the night.

and i cannot tell you how happy that makes me.

— a happy spirit

A >> B. No need for “fan C.”

Be. Do.


A need arises, or: a human thing occurs.

A thought, a sight, an emotion, a desire.

The kernel of will is born.

The emotions get to work, the brain builds it with the sight, sense, etc- and then perhaps a thing is born.

Then, we start wondering if anyone likes us, because we're so over-loaded with having created something, we wonder if anyone else noticed.

This may turn into something later.

If I utilize a simple kernel of will.

[to share.]

— a happy spirit

some things i know, some things i learn as i go with the flow.

that's just how it's gotta be.

“water drop splash umbrella no. 11” by Megan Kelly

https://www.megankelly.photography check out more of this amazing photographers work with water at her home page.

— a happy spirit

but really the focus is the gift of being. life. we all need to remember to forget, on our journey to becoming. it's easy to get stuck in the details.

— a happy spirit


— a happy spirit


What is it? Please share it.

I'll collect the submissions at the end of the day and put them all together in one blog post 12 hours from now- at 10:35 PST 10-14-2020.

:) You have 12 hours.


— a happy spirit

There is little I could possibly hope to do in terms of introducing this. The words of this man loosen the strings of my neck and shoulders, jaw and leaves me needing to drink some water. If you read this slowly, and pause when you feel punched in the middle of the chest, take your time, cry, get up, scream, do whatever it is -

This article is going to rip you in half, most likely- if you're a caring person. You have been warned, but it's also beautiful and truly a master piece. This is the third talk of Jiddhu Krishnamurti, perhaps one of the most intriguing philosophers of the last 150 years.

There is no buddha, but there are shining examples among women and men, and this guy really left a hell of a legacy for us to learn from, if we are to open our hearts and read slowly.

Perhaps read it with a spouse or friend, or a small group, a few pages at a time, out loud- and discuss it. I took a class like that once that was very effective, it was a poetry course, and we would sit (less than 12 of us) in chairs around a circle, and the teacher was just part of the circle, not in the middle or anything... We learned a lot.

We'd read 5 pages each in order clockwise or counter clockwise or we'd draw #'s out of a little plastic tub or glass jar, and then go in that order reading. homework “” , what only of it there was literally was only reading, between 30-60 pages, and the course was three times a week. we got a lot of books read, and it was utterly fascinating and really transformational for me.

Here is The Third Talk, without further adieu.

Many of us must have considered the problem of disintegration. Almost everything that we touch soon disintegrates. There is no creative, worthwhile action which soon does not end in complexities, worries, miseries, and confusion. It must have occurred to many of us why this should be so, and why at different levels of our human existence there is a darkened withering away and deterioration. We must have noticed this and found some kind of answer. We accept it as inevitable and find some worthwhile or merely verbal explanation, and we are satisfied because whatever we do, we want some explanation, some satisfactory words that will soothe our active mind. So we will soon get lost in the jungle of explanations.

We are going to discuss this evening the question of “education.” It seems to me that one of the major factors of deterioration everywhere is the so-called education. We are going into that presently as succinctly as possible. But before I go into that very complex problem, I think it is very necessary that you and I should not merely either accept or refute anything I am going to suggest. Perhaps it may be new or it may be very old, but the mere rejection or acceptance of it without really understanding the whole complex problem is utterly valueless. So, may I suggest that while you are listening, you do not say, “That is impossible,” “It is not practical,” “It is not worthwhile,” “All that we know already.” All that indicates merely, does it not, a very sluggish mind, a mind that does not want to penetrate and understand the problem. And our minds are dull, especially at the end of the day after doing some worthless action of a routine, stupid life; we come here generally for entertainment, for something to listen to or talk about afterwards. At this meeting, I suggest that we consider this problem of education and examine it together – but not that I am stating the problem and you are looking at it.

What do we mean by education? Why do we want to be educated? Why do you send your children to be educated? Is it the mere acquisition of some technical knowledge which will give you a certain capacity, with which to lead your life so that you can apply that technique and get a profitable job? Is that what we mean by education, to pass certain examinations and then to become a clerk, and from a clerk to climb up the ladder of managerial efficiency? Or, do we educate our children or educate ourselves in order to understand the whole complex problem of living? With what intention actually do we send our children to be educated or do we get educated ourselves? Obviously, taking it factually as things are, you get educated in order to get a job and with that you are satisfied; and that is all you are concerned with – to be able to earn a livelihood by some means. So you go to a college or to a university, you soon marry and you have to earn a livelihood, and before you know where you are, you are a grandfather for the rest of your life. That is what most of us are doing with education; that is the fact. With that, most of us are satisfied.

But is that education? Is that an integrating process in which there can be a comprehension of the whole, total process of life? That is, do you want to educate your children to understand the whole of life, and not merely a segment of life like the physical, emotional, mental, psychological, or spiritual; to have not the compartmental, divided outlook but a whole, total, integrated outlook on life in which, of course, there is the earning capacity? Now, which is it that we want – not theoretically but actually? What is our necessity? According to that, you will have universities, schools, examinations or no examinations. But to merely talk narrowly about linguistic divisions seems to me utterly infantile. What we will have to do as mature human beings – if there are such entities existing – is to go into this problem. Do you want your children to be educated to be glorified clerks, bureaucrats, leading utterly miserable, useless, futile lives, functioning as machines in a system? Or, do you want integrated human beings who are intelligent, capable, fearless? We will find out, probably, what we mean by “intelligence.” The mere acquisition of knowledge is not intelligence, and it does not make an intelligent human being. You may have all the technique, but that does not necessarily mean that you are an intelligent, integrated human being.

So, what is this thing that brings about integration in life, that makes a human being intelligent? That is what we want; at least, that is what we intend to find out in our education, if we are at all intelligent and interested in education. That is what we are attempting to do, are we not? Does this subject interest you, sirs? You seem rather hesitant. Or do you want to discuss about the soul? Sirs, education is really one of our major problems, if not the most important problem in life because as I said, everything is deteriorating around us and in us. We are not creative human beings. We are merely technicians. And if we are creating a new world, a new culture, surely there must be a revolution in our outlook on life, and not merely the acceptance of things as they are or the changing of things as they are.

Now, is it possible through education, the right kind of education, to bring about this integrated human being – that is, a human being who is thinking in terms of the whole, and not merely of the part; who is thinking as a total entity, as a total process, and not indulging in divided, broken up, fractional thinking? Is it possible for a human being to be intelligent – that is, to be without fear – through education so that the mind is capable of thinking freely, not thinking in terms of a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian or a Communist? You can think freely only when your mind is unconditioned – that is, not conditioned as a Catholic or a Communist and so on – so that you are capable of looking at all the influences of life which are constantly conditioning you; so that you are capable of examining, observing, and freeing yourself from these conditions and influences; so that you are an intelligent human being without fear.

Our problem is how to bring about, through education, a human being who is creative, who is capable, who possesses that intelligence which is not burdened and which is not shaped in any particular direction but is total, who is not belonging to any particular society, caste, or religion so that through that education and with that intelligence, he arrives at maturity and therefore is capable of making his life, not merely as a technician but as a human being.

Now, that is our problem, is it not? Because we see what is happening in the world and especially here in this industrially backward country, we are trying to catch up industrially with the rest of the world; we think it will take ourselves and our children to catch up with the rest of the world. So, we are concerned with that, and not with the whole, total problem of living in which there is suffering, pain, death, the problem of sex, the whole problem of thinking, to live happily and creatively; we brush all that aside and are only concerned with special capacities. But we have to create a different human being, so obviously, our whole educational system must undergo a revolution, which means, really, there must be the education of the educator. That is, the educator must himself obviously be free or attempt to be free from all those qualities which are destructive in him, which are narrowing him down.

We must create a different human being who is creative. That is important, is it not? And it is not possible to do this in a class where there are a hundred children or thirty or forty children and only one teacher – which means, really, every teacher must have very few children, which means again, the expense involved. So, seeing the complexities, the parents want to get their children educated somehow so that they may serve for the rest of their life in some office. But if you, as parents, really love your children – which I really question – if you are really concerned with your children, if you are really interested in their education, obviously you must understand this problem of “what is education.” It must present itself to you, must it not?

As things are at present, and with this educational system and the so-called passing of examinations, is it possible to bring about an integrated human being, a human being who understands life or who is struggling to understand life – life being earning a livelihood, marriage, and all the problems of relationship, love, kindliness? This is only possible where there is no ambition. Because, an ambitious man is not an intelligent man, he is a ruthless man; he may be ambitious spiritually, but he is equally ruthless. Is it possible to have a human being without ambition? Can there be the right education which will produce such a human being – which means, really, a spiritual human being? I rather hesitate to use the word because you will immediately translate it in terms of some religious pursuit, some superstition. But if you are really concerned with education, is not that our problem?

Your immediate reaction to that is: What is the method? You want to know what the method is, how this can be brought about. Now, is there a method? Do please listen to this; don't brush it aside. Is there a method – a system – for the educator which will bring about that state of integration in a human being? Or, is there no method at all? Our educator must be much concerned, very watchful, very alert with each individual. As each individual is a living entity, the educator has to observe him, study him, and encourage in him that extraordinary quality of intelligence which will help him to become free, intelligent, and fearless. Can there be a method to do that? Does not method imply immediately conditioning a student to a particular pattern which you, as educator, think is important? You think you are helping him to grow into an intelligent human being by inflicting on him a pattern which you already have of what an intelligent human being should be. And you call that education, and feel as though you have created a marvelous world, a world in which you are all kind, happy, creative.

We have not created a beautiful world, but perhaps, if we know how to help the child to grow intelligently, he might create a different world in which there will be no war, no antagonism between man and man. If you are interested in this, is it not the obvious responsibility of each grown-up individual to see that this kind of education does come about – which means, really, the educator can have only a very few students with him; there may be no examinations, but there will be the observation of each student and his capacities. This means, really, that there will be no so-called mass education, that is, educating thousands in two or three classes. That is not education.

So if you are interested in this, you will create a right kind of educator and help the child to be free to create a new world. It is not a one man job; it is the responsibility of the educator, of the parent, and of the student. It is not just the teacher alone that is responsible for creating a human being, intelligent and fearless, because the teacher may attempt it, but when the child goes back home, the people there will begin to corrupt him; they will begin to influence him; his grandmother will begin to condition his mind. So it is a constant struggle. And unless you as parents cooperate with the teacher and produce the right kind of education, obviously there is going to be greater and greater deterioration. That is what intelligent human beings are concerned with – how to approach this problem. But, most of you say you do not want to think of these problems at all; you want to be told what to do, to follow certain systems and put other things aside. All that you are concerned with is the begetting of children and passing them on to teachers.

But if you were really concerned with the right type of education, surely, it is your responsibility as grown-up people to see that through education there is right livelihood, not any old livelihood. Right livelihood implies, obviously, not joining the army, not becoming a policeman, not becoming a lawyer. Obviously, those three professions are out if you are really concerned with the right kind of education. I know, sirs, you laugh at it because it is a joke to you, it is an amazing thing; but if you really take it seriously, you would not laugh. The world is destroying itself; more and more means of vast destruction of human beings are there; those who laugh are not really concerned with the shadow of death which is constantly accompanying man. Obviously, one of the deteriorating factors for man is the wrong kind of education as we have at present.

To create an intelligent human being, there must be a complete revolution in our thinking. An intelligent human being means a fearless human being who is not bound by tradition, which does not mean he is immoral. You have to help your child to be free to find out, to create a new society – not a society according to some pattern such as Marx, Catholic, or capitalist. That requires a great deal of thought, concern, and love – not mere discussions about love. If we really loved our children, we would see that there would be right education.

Question: Even after the end of the British rule, there is no radical change in the system of our education. The stress as well as the demand is for specialization – technical and professional training. How best can education become the means to the realization of true freedom?

Krishnamurti: Sir, what do we mean by true freedom? Political freedom? Or is it freedom to think what you like? Can you think what you like? And does thinking bring about freedom? Is not all thinking conditioned thinking? So, what do we mean by true freedom?

So far as we know, education is conditioned thinking, is it not? All that we are concerned with is to acquire a job or use that knowledge for self-satisfaction, for self-aggrandizement, to get on in the world. Is it not important to see what we mean by true freedom? Perhaps if we understand that, then the training in some technique for professional specialization may have its value. But merely to cultivate technical capacity without understanding what is true freedom leads to destruction, to greater wars; and that is actually what is happening in the world now. So let us find out what we mean by true freedom.

Obviously the first necessity for freedom is that there should be no fear – not only the fear imposed by society, but also the psychological fear of insecurity. You may have a very good job and you may be climbing up the ladder of success, but if there is ambition, if there is the struggle to be somebody, does that not entail fear? And does that not imply that he who is very successful is not truly free? So fear imposed by tradition, by the so-called responsibility of the edicts of society, or your own fear of death, of insecurity, of disease – all this prevents the true freedom of being, does it not?

So freedom is not possible if there is any form of outward or inward compulsion. Compulsion comes into being when there is the urge to conform to the pattern of society or to the pattern which you have created for yourself as being good or not good. The pattern is created by thought which is the outcome of the past, of your tradition, of your education, of your whole experience based on the past. So, as long as there is any form of compulsion – governmental, religious, or your own pattern which you have created for yourself through your desire to fulfill, to become great – there will be no true freedom. It is not an easy thing to do nor an easy thing to understand what we mean by true freedom. But we can see that as long as there is fear in any form, we cannot know what true freedom is. Individually or collectively, if there is fear, compulsion, there can be no freedom. We may speculate about true freedom, but the actual freedom is different from the speculative ideas about freedom.

So, as long as the mind is seeking any form of security – and that is what most of us want – as long as the mind is seeking permanency in any form, there can be no freedom. As long as individually or collectively we seek security, there must be war, which is an obvious fact, and that is what is happening in the world today. So there can be true freedom only when the mind understands this whole process of the desire for security, for permanency. After all, that is what you want in your gods, in your gurus. In your social relationships, your governments, you want security, so you invest your God with the ultimate security, which is above you; you clothe that image with the idea that you as an entity are such a transient being, and that there, at least, you have permanency. So you begin with the desire to be religiously permanent; and all your political, religious, and social activities, whatever they are, are based on that desire for permanency – to be certain, to perpetuate yourselves through the family or through the nation or through an idea, through your son. How can such a mind which is seeking constantly – consciously or unconsciously – permanency, security, how can such a mind ever have freedom?

We really do not seek true freedom. We seek something different from freedom, we seek better conditions, a better state. We do not want freedom; we want better, superior, nobler conditions, and that we call education. Can this education produce peace in the world? Certainly, not. On the contrary, it is going to produce greater wars and misery. As long as you are a Hindu, Muslim, or God knows what else, you are going to create strife for yourself, for your neighbor, and nation. Do we realize this? Look at what is happening in India! I do not have to tell you because you already know it.

Instead of being integrated human beings, you are thinking separatively; your activities are fractioned, broken up, disintegrated – you're Maharashtra, you're Gujarat, you're Andhra, you're Tamil – you are all fighting; that is the result of this so-called freedom and so-called education. You say that you have unity religiously, but actually you are fighting, destroying each other, because you do not see the whole process of living, because you are only concerned with tomorrow or to have better jobs. You will go out after listening and do exactly the same thing. You will be a Maharashtrian forgetting the rest of the world. As long as you are thinking in those terms, you are going to have wars, miseries, destruction. You will never be safe, neither you nor your children, though you want to be safe, and therefore you are thinking in this narrow, regional way. As long as you have these ways, you have got to have wars.

Your present way of living indicates that you really do not want to have freedom; what you want is merely a better way of living, more safety, more contentment, to be assured of a job, to be assured of your position – religiously, politically. Such people cannot create a new world. They are not religious people. They are not intelligent people. They are thinking in terms of immediate results like all politicians. And you know that as long as you leave the world to politicians, you are going to have destruction, wars, misery. Sirs, please don't smile. It is your responsibility, not your leaders' responsibility; it is your own individual responsibility.

Freedom is something entirely different. Freedom comes into being; it cannot be sought after. It comes into being when there is no fear, when there is love in your heart. You cannot have love and think in terms of a Hindu, a Christian, a Muslim, a Parsee, or God knows what else. Freedom comes into being only when the mind is no longer seeking security for itself, either in tradition or in knowledge. A mind that is crippled with knowledge or burdened with knowledge is not a free mind. The mind is only free when it is capable of meeting life at every moment, meeting the reality which every incident, which every thought, which every experience reveals, and that revelation is not possible when the mind is crippled by the past.

It is the responsibility of the educator to create a new human being, to bring about a different human being, fearless, self-reliant, who will create his own society – a society totally unlike ours because ours is based on fear, envy, ambition, corruption. True freedom can only come when intelligence comes into being – that is, the understanding of the whole, total process of existence.

Question: Modern life has become abjectly dependent on highly trained persons; what are your views on university education? How can we prevent the misuse of higher technical knowledge?

Krishnamurti: Sir, surely it all depends on for what you are being educated. If you are merely being educated to a particular specialized job through university education in which there is no consideration of the total process of existence – which is love, concern for your neighbor, the problem of what is truth, death, envy, the whole problem of life – if you are only concerned with the acquisition of a particular type of knowledge, and not with the problem of life, then obviously you are creating a world of confusion, of darkness, of misery; and then you ask how that can be prevented.

Now, how are you going to prevent it, sirs? How are you and I going to prevent it? Sirs, is it not your responsibility? Or do you say, “It is our karma, we do what we can to live, but life is too much for us,” and leave it at that? Do you not feel this is your responsibility? As parents, do you not feel that the darkness is closing in, deterioration is setting in fast in every human being? Do you not feel that we have ceased to be really creative? Merely painting pictures or being trained to paint them or writing a poem occasionally is not what I mean by creativity. Creativity is something entirely different, and it comes into being when there is no concern or fear of oneself clothed in the form of virtue, or concern for oneself socially, economically, politically. When that concern, that fear ceases, there is creativity.

The understanding of the whole process of thought which builds the 'I', the 'me', and the dissolution of that – is not that true education? And if it is, should not universities help towards that end and at the same time give students the right opportunity to cultivate capacities? But now, we are concerned with the cultivation of capacities, gifts, tendencies to become more and more efficient, and we deny the whole of life which is much deeper, truer, more complex. So it is your responsibility, is it not? Sirs, the individual problem is the world problem. Your problem is the problem of the world. Those problems are not separate from your daily problems. How you live, how you think, what you do will create the world or destroy the world. We do not realize this. We do not see this responsibility, and so we say, “Technical knowledge is bringing about the destruction of man; how can that be prevented?” I will give you the explanation, the manner of doing it, and you will listen and go away, and carry on as usual. So explanations no longer matter; descriptions of theories have no value any more; what is of importance now is that you, as an individual, understand and become responsible for your actions. You are responsible. You and others can, with equal enthusiasm and interest, create a new world. You are to think of the problem anew, not create a new pattern – communist or another religious form.

Real revolution does not come merely at the superficial level, at the economic level. Real revolution lies in our hearts and minds, and it can only come when we understand the whole total process of our being from day to day, in every relationship. And then only is there a possibility of preventing technical knowledge being used for the destruction of man.

Question: Educationists all over the world are troubled by the question of moral education. How can education evoke the deeper core of human decency and goodness in oneself and in others?

Krishnamurti: The good is not the “respectable.” The respectable man can never know what is good. Most of us are respectable, and therefore we do not know what it is to be good. Moral education can only come, not with the cultivation of respectability, but with the awakening of love. But we do not know what love is. Is love something to be cultivated? Can you learn it in colleges, in schools, from teachers, from technicians, from the following of your gurus? Is devotion love? And if it is, can the man who is respectable, who is devoted, know love? Do you know what I mean by respectability? Respectability is when the mind is cultivating, when the mind is becoming virtuous. The respectable man is the man who is struggling consciously not to be envious, the man who is following tradition, he who says, “What will people say?” Respectability will obviously never know what truth is, what good is, because the respectable man is only concerned with himself.

It is love which brings morality. Without love there is no morality. You may be a great man, a moral man; you may be very good; you may not be envious; you may have no ambition, but if you have no love, you are not moral, you are not good, fundamentally, deeply, profoundly. You may have all the outer trimmings of goodness, but if you have no love in the heart, there can be no moral, ethical being. Is love something to be taught in a school? Please follow all this. What is it that prevents us from loving? If you can be taught in the school and in the house to love, how simple it would be, would it not? Many books are written on it. You learn them and you repeat them, and you know all the symptoms of love without having love.

Can love be taught? Please, sirs, this is really an important question; please do follow it. If love cannot be taught, what are the things that are preventing love? The things of the mind, the thoughts, the jealousy, the anguish, the ideas, the pursuits, their suppressions, the motives of the mind – these may be the things that prevent love. And as we have cultivated the mind for several centuries, it may be that the mind is preventing us from loving. So perhaps the things that you are teaching your children and the things that you are learning through universities and colleges may be the things which are at the root of the destruction of love because you are only developing one side – the intellectual side, the so-called technical side – and that is becoming more and more important in an industrial world; other things become less and less valuable; they fade away. If love can be taught in school through books, shown on the screen in cinemas, then it would be possible to cultivate morality. If morality is a thing of tradition, then it is quite simple; then you condition the student to be moral, to be a communist, to be a socialist, to think along a particular line and say that that line is the good line, the true line; any deviation from it is immoral, ending up in concentration camps.

Is morality something to be taught – which means, can the mind be conditioned to be moral? Or is morality something that springs spontaneously, joyously, creatively? This is only possible when there is love. That love cannot exist when you cultivate your mind, which is the very center of the 'me', the 'I', the thing that is uppermost in most of us day in and day out – the 'me' that is so important, the 'I' that is everlastingly trying to fulfill, trying to be something. And as long as that 'I' exists, do what you will, all your morality has no meaning; it is merely conformity to a pattern based on security, for your being something some day, so that you can live without any fear. Such a state is not a moral state; it is merely an imitation. The more a society is imitative, following tradition, the more deteriorating it is. It is important to see this, to find out for oneself how the self, the 'me' is perpetuating itself, how the 'me' is everlastingly thinking about virtue and trying to become virtuous and establishing laws of morality for itself and for others. So the good man who is following the pattern of good is the respectable man, and the respectable man is not the man who knows what love is. Only the man who knows what love is, is the moral man.

January 31, 1953

Source : http://legacy.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-text.php?tid=418&chid=4737&w=education&s=Text

— a happy spirit

I need breakfast this is almost finished. (there are a few paragraphs missing) in the middle.

The most excellent book referenced is “Fingerprints of the Gods,” by Graham Hancock. The first time I read it in about a day, and may have been cross eyed for the following week. But in speaking to a mysterious globally omni-quasi-temporarily present and then mysteriously vanished, culture- that appears to have left things everywhere, (to be very general)– but I wonder this instead-

Is he saying really that perhaps:

There is a group not named or generally known, which has installed all that we see infrastructure wise or what have you through space time, but the stuff that makes up our universe, or maybe just solar system? Dunno- you see this goes all over the place, and that to me personally is fine, you maybe not so much? maybe so.. Maybe so. :)

But all of this world and the and associated construction- in space time, that perhaps the they who did these things were not flowing robed tall mysteriously appearing and disappearing robed dudes with white hair teaching culture and logic and how to grow crops, husband animals and so on- but there is more going on here.

I think perhaps what Graham is saying but cannot say directly is similar to this: Perhaps the robed folks are are actually representational avatars for the folks that installed everything everywhere and thats why certain cultures are not allowed to depict God, because that would be god, or God, or so forth, respectfully and with respect.

and, well- it seems the construction is everywhere: . phew but yeah, that's my wonderment, in short-form.

Exhibit A:

> Latin to English English to Latin aether, aetheris #1 noun declension: undeclined Definitions: ether heaven, sky sky (as a god) space surrounding a deity upper air Age: In use throughout the ages/unknown Area: All or none Geography: All or none Frequency: Frequent, top 2000+ words Source: “Oxford Latin Dictionary”, 1982 (OLD)

Because the word is oft an “invisible” weapon more than unifying tool. – If every human realized the power behind the last sentence, and the implications- we would not be living in the world we are living in right now.

There is a definitive echelon to how strong an idea is, by virtue of its construction.

Most people cannot construct a proper argument, much less sort molecular hygiene with their will and product or mode of life, but the best stuff is done exactly with these and other things taken into intentional consideration while creating them.

By deliberately unifying chemistry, physics, geometry, alchemy, and other things- materials science, accurate measurement and best practices with tools machines and so forth – we end up with a very happy object in space time. Well, kind of- but that's another story too.

But as you know, you cannot fit an oil filter from one car into another, and much the same way- if you're designing something it has to fit the function you intend, because on earth- materials have certain qualities and simply will not do certain things, I've never had a breakfast of gaseous eggs and toast, much the same way cars don't levitate. :-p

All of these things though, contributes with the other elements such as materials science, and thus chemistry- to the over all complexity of a design -

because these functional operators must exist for the design to be intentionally permanent – put permanent in quotes and strike into place “more functionally faithful”. I think we have a word for this, “reliable,” no? ;-P

But, a system that follows this kind of aforementioned, typifies the difference between something you will use for years and enjoy- or not even notice it works so well, or it will be a thorn to remove carefully, slowly- etc.

The good systems are unified systems, and they operate in accordance with natural laws of planet earth, that don't care what color or gender you are, or if you have a mask on your face.

That is to say it's a unified system, and operates in accordance with natural law.

Technically though this is incorrect, all aspects of a thing have their own power and quality or qualia about them, and unique characteristics that may be manipulated in the design ~

Whence forth in a new direction either a new feature is formed, a radical departure created, or a wholly new thing drops in- like the story we are told about the microwave, the candy bar and Raytheon employee. . Okay.

But, The character of a thing – what makes up what it is, or how it is, or “how it be,” depending on where you live, I suppose-

The thing shows up in the world radically differently, and the results are noticed by us. We would all do better to stick to more foundational principles instead of getting lost in detail. Why are you even doing a thing? Do you know? Start there.

Hey show up in the world, what it does, how it drives, etc- extrapolate quite a bit on that one in all axial directions to vaguely gauge the realm of possibility we are yet aware of here.

Do this. Imagine a nuclear core of glowing energy, and then have it explode happily out into a void of black space, shooting light and gas and pins and thunderbolts of plasma everywhere. A star is born. We then all got grumpy, then settled earth (it seems, eventually.)

To shorten quite a long story I cannot accurately claim to tell and also expect to take myself seriously.

I think that about sums up the big bang, and well if that's what happened, and the rest grew like bacteria inside a mason jar you forgot outside,

I don't know what else to tell you either it kind of just is the only thing we got, so we go with it and explore.

The truth is as you know- nebulous, but we're all here, and it's all more or less fully inter-woven – if you can see it.

All of it, or perceptually to you, all of it . . . and therein is the mystery- we will never understand the difference between you and me, but we can delude ourselves with words, and belief systems, into thinking we can understand each other. But-

At the same time, we are indeed with similarity, humans, and with plants and animals with DMT molecule similarity among all living things on planet earth, among other things, so the story gets a bit hairy, and complicated, -

but it's beautiful- and worth reading- and well, truly a “shoebox with everything and nothing in it at once” and with no beginning and end, no definite shape to any form of a thing before it is borne or moulded and so on – So just take that to the intellectual bank when mad at your calendar, and go free yourself and do something else-

and that's at least one small thing about reality I find weird. but also indescribably beautiful, what I've been forever altered in perception and life trajectory by having seen anyway of it.

Diverging in a slow parallel arc...

It is not action alone that makes a thing happen, or “intention and meditation and action” or any simple manner of popular trope, however it is simply the correct application of things like geometry, thought and visualization, speech hygiene, electromagnetic , et hoc genus omne, materials selection, etc)

all of it matters. “matters” is drawn to by the above geometry etc thingies- and is drawn to become matter- drawn into form by the magic wand! they're your hands dude.

Then down the line we add more action, and applied iteration, and can then add electricity (fracked off-sputter of reality condensate- that's another story best not understood just yet- collectively the world isn't ready for it),

You give 3d animus constructs without proper full animus, ... life. (Or if you did it right, – Then a really cool neat thing is borne of aether and the various forces that mold and meld and create and and and and , or and and or blah blah ha ha! – ... , or so on.

However- this is not to be overly declarative, the synthetic electronic universe we have created through networked and distributed computing is really quite alive. You cannot pretend it's not and pretend you're sane at the same time.

Anyway, the thing that is missing from most things is a true unification of a harmony in their assembly...

Here's a great example when you do a thing but you know the thing was not finished as well as you could do it- but you said “eh!” and went off.. ? Knowing it would silently fail and you'd just clean it later? We have all tried that once.

That is how most things are made. They don't last because they are actually technically, – incomplete.

Make sure above all else, you are happy and not harming anything in the process (people too). Make and Create, a beautiful day for yourself.

— a happy spirit

Enter your email to subscribe to updates.