What is the best way to learn about Jiddu Krishnamurti?

First of all, never, ever, ever let someone explain Krishnamurti to you.

So, on a beautiful day, take a Krishnamurti book and walk peacefully into the shade of a tree, and then watch so that nothing and no one in the world interferes with what will happen between you, the teachings, and the tree.

The observation of the fragments

We are constituted by multiple planes. To perceive this fact is the simple way; not looking at it directly is the complex way.

All world events affect those planes separately.

The look that contemplates everything: the planes and the impacts, lacks entity and therefore, lacks fragmentation.

If we think about the fragmented reality, we increase the fragmentation, but if there is that empty look on the fragmented then there is unity, totality, although the observed fragments continue to exist.

The "self-help attitude" and the "scientific attitude" regarding the teachings of Krishnamurti

"Arbol solitario en un campo de lavanda con un paisaje de cielo tormentoso con profundidad de campo" 

"Lone tree in a lavender field with a stormy sky landscape with deep depth of field"
AnthonyZ Photography

Too often the understanding of Krishnamurti's teaching is much like the understanding of scientific facts.

When you study astronomy or zoology, you do not do that seeking to improve yourself "as a person"; You do it impersonally, without expecting results that affect you because you simply want to understand the facts of the universe.

But when we face the investigation of the facts of the human mind it seems that we become disoriented and we are already in the stream of "if I understand this, that will make me a better person."

It is a completely irrational leap and obstructs research. In fact, because there is a deviant interest, an inclination to see certain facts and not others, all inquiry ends.

(...) 

When we speak from the intellect there is a recognizable atmosphere. There is a rhythm, a poetry (say) different than when we speak from meditative states.

That is, one does not transmit only words; instead, we also transmit the state from which these words arise.

Even if we say only one sentence, the meditative state charges that phrase with new meanings.

The meditative states are the only ones that instantly harmonize the other planes.

From a conversation

The Beauty rests surprisingly anywhere

Bessède de Sault
Jean-Luc PJL

Response to a comment on this photo.

Regarding that tree that you say is as beautiful as any other Castilian, of course, is what I am saying.

I say that beauty is a mystery because it is something that is wandering around the world. Maybe the day before, or a month before, that same tree, that same perspective would not have been extraordinary. But one morning you go through the same place you've been through hundreds of times, and suddenly you realize that there is something else, a beauty that was not before. It can last for hours or days, but then, inevitably, it will also go away.
The beautiful are the outer forms, which remain, plus a mysterious special grace, which comes and goes with light or with wind or for inconceivable reasons.
This is much more visible to performance artists, who know perfectly well that they can play 100 times a theatre play but that the magic will only occur in a few of those times. And so are the painters and even the writers.
I believe that true artists are, essentially, hunters not so much of the apparent but of that stealthy grace.

The interference of genetics factors on objectivity

From a conversation:

The vast majority of discussions are actually to define who has the best genes; the subject itself does not matter. This is particularly visible in political discussions. There is no real interest in seeing things as they are, but imposing what suits you best - that is, the survival of one's own genes at the expense of the other. 

Then, when it comes to discussing the political issue at a table, that primary impulse mixes with "I see things better than you" - and therefore, my genes are better. The discussion becomes a verbal box match. 

Conversation outside the realm of the genetic need to survive and compete looks different, more like scientific discussions, abstracts, and so on.But the genetic question even interferes in the scientific field, when there are bloody discussions on subjects for which there is no definitive proof. 

Genetic competition is very primary, atavistic and clever to disguise itself as genuine non-egocentric interest.

Defending animals

Why do some people criticize those who oppose, say, the Toro de la Vega, arguing that there are animals that suffer much more throughout their lives?
In this they are quite right: the treatment of pigs in cages where they can barely move, or the treatment of dogs in Asia, etc can not be compared with the treatment given to the bulls.

But there are several errors of judgment here, the most important being ... how do these critics know that people who are concerned with the Toro de la Vega is not also concerned with the welfare of other animals? And with that way of seeing things, one should not help a poor Spaniard anymore, just because there are poors in much worse conditions in Somalia

The truly sensitive people seek to end all kinds of harm to animals, never mind whether the damage is little, or too much, and regardless of the numbers either.

One acts to end animal suffering in all its forms, in all times and in all places and that's it.

Let's see if they end with that mantra once !!!



Original post: http://galaxio.blogspot.com/2015/07/defender-los-animales.html

Open eyes

For so many years I thought that the problem of humanity was not to perceive the Good, to realize now that that is not enough, that more serious than that is not to perceive the Evil. 

Not to perceive both is to be blind. 
To perceive only the Good is to be one-eyed. 
To perceive both the Good and the Evil is to have both eyes open.



From: http://galaxio.blogspot.com.es/2015/06/ojos-abiertos-open-eyes.html