All Comments By

What nonconceptual awareness means to me is what the late J Krishnamurti taught me: to look at something non-verbally. Usually we look at a flower or any object including living beings by naming them, i.e. through a word. We have practically created an image in our minds about everything in the phenomenal world, and we observe them through that image. We never question whether the 'observer' is an imagined non-entity or a real entity. In the moments of my intense observation, I have often felt that the 'observer' and the 'observed' have merged in each other; in fact, only the 'observed' remains and the 'observer' takes a backseat, rather passes into oblivion and anonymity.

Reading attentively the above piece I felt that such literature is the Upanishads or the Bible in modern times, What good are our so-called holy books if they make us more and more dogmatic and bigoted instead of bringing about transformation in us! I encounter moments of awe almost on a daily basis whether I am on an evening walk and imbibing the beauty of greenery, the hoot of a bird or closely watching the movement of a child in a street, or a yellow leaf swirling its way to the ground after leaving the branch of a tree. Living in awe is all about living in constant wonderment--gaping at everything wondrous or even unusual--allowing us to be wonderstruck by even the littlest thing around us. "...practicing awe expands our capacity to be in awe?" However, I must be forgiven for saying that it is not a matter of practicing awe but only an art of keen observation and listening with total attention --without the interference of mechanical thought. It is an art of remaining vulnerable without any defence or resistance. An art of let go. Rather than practicing awe we should cultivate sensitivity through self-awareness. When the mind is silent, even a ripple on the surface of water or a bird in flight can a moment of epiphany.

Recently, a close relative of mine was furiously shouting at me for suggesting a solution contrary to the idea of the person. Since I was not in a position of answering back though each harsh word angrily thrown at me was bitingly painful, hurting my self-pride, my mind was resisting that and I was badly trying to mentally escape from that unpleasant situation. Just then I remembered the words of J Krishnamurti telling us not to resist 'what is' but face it with total attention. I was also reminded of Osho's words: "This too will pass." I did not react at all, and to my surprise, within minutes that person calmed down.

Compassion is the highest form of intelligence--an intelligence that sees life as something that is homogeneous whole, based on the oneness of life. Compassion is a state of consciousness that throbs at the same wavelength as the consciousness of humanity. A thinker defined 'compassion' as passion for ALL. This 'all' is all inclusive--those who are suffering as well as those who are rejoicing and celebrating.

There have been so much hatred and bloodshed in the name of religion (and nationalism) in human history that it is hard to think of religion in a positive light. It's no wonder that J. Krishnamurti instead talked of a RELIGIOUS MIND, defining it as a mind that has freed itself from the enslaving tyranny all organized religions. A mind that sees the truth of the fundamental oneness of human psyche is a religious mind, a mind which then becomes incapable of harbouring any negative feelings toward any fellow humans because of their cultural, racial or geographical differences--according to Krishnamurti. A religious mind primarily concerns itself with thinking rationally and sanely, and living righteously with a clear sense of moral uprightness rather than believing in the senseless dogmas that pervade most tradional religions. A 'secular' person need be neither faithful nor faithless but only aware of the fact that all religions were born in a particular socio-cultural ecosystem with their own beliefs and traditions, hence they essentially lack universality, validity and relevance in the contemporary global landscape.

This is truly a spiritual way of living that captures a profound sense of religiosity while going beyond the narrow confines of religions and their cumbersome dictates and dogmas.

"I will listen. Maybe I’ll stop listening if I don’t like what you are saying, but I won’t interrupt you." Though I seem to grasp the heart of the matter, it arouses some questions in my mind: 1. Can we listen beyond our likes and dislikes ? 2. Why stop listening ? And if we stop listening, what will my mind do ? Either it would RESIST what is being said or go back to its old habit of mechanically wandering here and there denying itself the valuable opportunity of mindfully living in the Here & Now. 3. After all, when we listen to this chirping of birds or a tree's leaves rustling in the breeze, don't we put aside this whole business of agreeing or disagreeing? 4. And why fear interrupting the speaker if he/she is talking nonsense ? Yes, we have to be utterly polite--while saying, "I am sorry, what you're talking doesn't interest me, so why waste our time ? 5. Last but not least, I humbly suggest not to callously and indifferently 'go away'--without saying 'thank you for sharing your ideas and views'. I think basically the problem is that the text has been phrased rather too naively. Yes, there is no doubt that the trees, the mountains , the whole Universe keeps whispering the words of wisdom to us which gets drowned in the tumult of our non-meditative mind.

"The brighter and larger the flame grew, the more of the cave we would see." Let us not blithely take it for granted that 'the flame' (of self-enquiry) is already there, and the rest is all a matter of time during which this flame will keep growing while I continue to lead a cozy existence, never stepping out of that 'seductive certainty' in the world of my comfort zone. It is, therefore, imperative to ask myself whether I have taken the first step of kindling that flame of dissatisfaction that would enable me to realize that I am leading a jaded life like a cabbage. "...life isn’t about reaching firm conclusions anyway, but about opening yourself to the possibility that you might be wrong, that there’s always more to learn." Once my flame of awareness has shown me the limitations of 'the cave', let us get out of the cave and stand under the vast expanse of the blue sky and venture out on an adventure of the 'Unknown' and 'Unknowable'.

The townsman's attitude is standard: I. A sense of insecurity 2. Quest for reassurance 3. Lack of thoughtfulness and sensitivity to others 4. Presumptuousness and obtrusiveness, and so on. If Nasrudin had granted the townsman's request, he would have added to his callousness and insensitivity. But by not doing so, the wise Nasrudin ensures that he does not become a crutch for his devotee and end up adding to his dependence on him. Thus, the story is not just about seeing the positive in a negative but has deeper meaning and significance. If one needs a material object to remind them of their object of love, that is no love at all. Secondly, the story also challenges us to accept a seemingly negative development in our life gracefully--with complete surrender.

Shame sounds to me a sense of unassuming tentativeness and vulnerability that prevents the heavy overpowering self from asserting itself and paves the way to humility--culminating in the discovery of inner affluence and fullness. When I realized that the more I condemn, resist and resent the self in me the more I end up strengthening it. Accepting what I am right now fully and unconditionally is the beginning of the dissolution of the self in me or call it the emergence of inner greatness in me.

Buried deep below the noise of our self-centered cunning, crooked and crafty mind, lies that unobtrusive unassuming voice of our conscience that constantly guides us through the very many ordeals of our lives--if we only cared to keep quiet inwardly and be all ears thirsting to hear what it has to say in the form of a feeling in our guts.

'Brokenness is not something to be hidden', however sorrow and suffering needn't be glorified either. Their onslaught shouldn't be RESISTED. Instead, they should be befriended because only true friendship helps you UNDERSTAND your friend. And without understanding your fragmentation and resultant suffering in its wake, one can not overcome or transcend it. Faced with an inclement weather, plants struggle to survive which, in turn, enhances its stamina. The inclement weather of our life's crises help enhance our spirit's stamina helping us toward an Aha moment Nikole for one seems to have been blessed with. May we all emerge from our respective dark nights of the soul and be blessed with a glimpse of light at the end of the tunnel!

We live in a world where earning a decent living demands a certain degree of expertise in some field. That expertise comes with the accumulation of information and knowledge, which is essentially an acquisitive process. The more one becomes knowledgeable, the more one loses that innocence we are all born with. And then starts an insatiable appetite for money and success . It is only through an intense self-awareness: awareness of the whole range of thoughts crossing one's mind that one can retain that primordial sense of innocence and sensitivity. Reminded of what the late J Krishnamurti wrote in one of his books: "A specialist never overflows; he remains tethered to the realm of the known, losing the sense of curiosity about the 'unknown and unknowable'.

With due apology to Rev. Joan Halifax, I wish the extract was titled a bit differently because the very word ‘optimism’ smacks of future, implying time, doesn’t it? Merriam-Webster Dictionary, while defining this word, includes the words: ‘anticipating the best outcome’. If I were to retitle it, I would prefer ‘Celebrating this very eternal moment’ or ‘Refusal to budge from Here & Now’ or ‘The ultimate art of living with positivity—about nothing’, etc. What Rev. Halifax talks of is the best form of theism sans God and which is BEYOND all known religious faiths on earth. It reminds me of what J. Krishnamurti calls ‘living from moment to moment while dying to each moment without collecting any residue psychologically’. No wonder he became notoriously famous for maintaining all his life: ‘Truth is a pathless land.’ He talked of a religious mind that doesn’t believe in any religion.

Throughout his life, my mentor J. Krishnamurti maintained that Truth is a pathless land. However, he clarified that unless order has been created in one's life, one would not touch the cosmic order usually referred to as Truth, God, etc. According to him, once you set your own house in order, you don't have to DO anything for Truth to knock your door; you just have to WAIT (until Truth enters your BEING like a breeze), which doesn't mean that other activities in your life come to a grinding halt. He also talked of laying the right kind of foundation in one's life, emphasising moral uprightness and righteous conduct. Apart from an intense awareness of the movement of life in one's immediate environment as well as whatever is going on in one's mental environment, WAITING, to my mind, implies floating rather than swimming OR effortlessly soaring rather than laboriously flying through the immense sky of life.

In order to really explore the subject of ‘love and marriage’ OR ‘love vs. marriage’ in all its subtle nuances of meaning and implication, we must first ask some fundamental questions: i) Is love a search of happiness or basically sharing of one’s happiness with others? ii) If it is a search for happiness, doesn’t this mean that one is unhappy right now and hopes to become happy or happier in a relationship? iii) An unhappy person seeking happiness is like a beggar begging for something. Can a beggar love? Or is it the privilege or gift of an ‘affluent’ person blessed with ‘abundance’? To my mind, a person with a mind or heart brimming with joy is an ‘affluent’ person—living in a state of perennial ‘abundance’. iv) Isn’t freedom actually one of the dimensions of this joy—or isn’t joy simply one of the expressions of freedom? (Not freedom FROM something but freedom per se, meaning freedom that is the culmination of self–discovery. Not the assertive and egoistic ‘self’ but ‘authentic self’.) v) Thus, is love ‘a relationship’ or is it essentially a state of ‘relatedness’? Feeling ‘related’ to every expression and movement of life around oneself—a bird in its flight, a smile on a face, tearful eyes of a grieving person, the western sky turning red, orange and purple at sunset, the sound of trees rustling in the breeze, and so on. This love knows no jealousy or hatred. Now, marriage! Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed and a few others are believed to have discovered Truth but when this Truth was organized, a religion was born and the fragrance of that Truth was gone. Marriage is an act of organization, and like any organization or institution, it is bound to have certain rules, restraints and constraints implying commitment, fidelity, reciprocation, expectation, etc. If someone feels stifle... [View Full Comment] In order to really explore the subject of ‘love and marriage’ OR ‘love vs. marriage’ in all its subtle nuances of meaning and implication, we must first ask some fundamental questions:

i) Is love a search of happiness or basically sharing of one’s happiness with others?

ii) If it is a search for happiness, doesn’t this mean that one is unhappy right now and hopes to become happy or happier in a relationship?

iii) An unhappy person seeking happiness is like a beggar begging for something. Can a beggar love? Or is it the privilege or gift of an ‘affluent’ person blessed with ‘abundance’? To my mind, a person with a mind or heart brimming with joy is an ‘affluent’ person—living in a state of perennial ‘abundance’.

iv) Isn’t freedom actually one of the dimensions of this joy—or isn’t joy simply one of the expressions of freedom? (Not freedom FROM something but freedom per se, meaning freedom that is the culmination of self–discovery. Not the assertive and egoistic ‘self’ but ‘authentic self’.)

v) Thus, is love ‘a relationship’ or is it essentially a state of ‘relatedness’? Feeling ‘related’ to every expression and movement of life around oneself—a bird in its flight, a smile on a face, tearful eyes of a grieving person, the western sky turning red, orange and purple at sunset, the sound of trees rustling in the breeze, and so on. This love knows no jealousy or hatred. Now, marriage! Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed and a few others are believed to have discovered Truth but when this Truth was organized, a religion was born and the fragrance of that Truth was gone. Marriage is an act of organization, and like any organization or institution, it is bound to have certain rules, restraints and constraints implying commitment, fidelity, reciprocation, expectation, etc. If someone feels stifled by such factors, why marry at all? Why not move along the course of life like a breeze with commitments to none in particular.

To fall in love with somebody is a beautiful human experience but that is not love. Love is not lust or attachment. Love between parents and their children or between siblings has different nuances and flavors but there is some commonality. It is up to them to find out if that is sheer love or different shades of attachment. You can discharge all your duties and responsibilities towards any `member` of your family without having the flame of love burning in your heart. The essence of love is the feeling that the other is more important than myself. It is altruism but you don’t consciously practice altruism.[Hide Full Comment]

One day while in my senior high school, I was walking with a classmate in my sleepy little town. We stopped at a coconut water seller's stand on the roadside to quench our thirst. Bargaining over the price with such humble little sellers is quite commonplace in India. Having finished our organic drink, Anticipating the inevitable bargaining in the offing, the seller quoted a rather inflated price but surprisingly enough, my friend paid the amount in inexplicable haste despite my protest. On resuming our walk, he said, "Look, while teaching Pascal’s principle our science teacher said: water always flows down seeking its own level. Money is like water; it should always flow down: from the rich to those who are less rich. I said to my friend, ‘But you are also quite poor.’ He quipped in the same vein: …money should flow from the poor to the poorer.

The first story inspires us to challenge ourselves to come out of the rut of our habitual mechanical robotic 'reactions' rather than the 'appropriate response'. The second one exhorts us to aspire for the mystical / religoious experience that might have transformed Gautam Siddharth into the Buddha. The extract on listening teaches us the art of living rightly as life is all about interacting and relating with our fellow humans on a daily basis.

Krishnamurti 's statement of 'Truth is a pathless land and you can not reach it by following any path' may be a matter of debate. I think his most revolutionary affirmation is: 'Religions are divisive in nature,; they divide humanity. What is required is cultivating a religious mind, which rejects all organized religions at one stroke and questions every belief. To him a religious mind is naturally disciplined and has virtues like integrity, love, affection and compassion--without having to consciously practise them.'