“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

– Upton Sinclair

“Single Ladies ( put a ring on it)” — a very popular video by Beyoncé.   There’s a lot that can be said about the video.  But one thing that strikes me is the bodies of the dancers — including Beyoncé.  They are not anorexic.  And who could suppose that women who were not anorexic would sell a video to 77 million viewers?

“To love a person is to learn the song that is in their heart, and to sing it to them when they have forgotten.”

 – Anonymous

The sky is grey.  The snow’s come.  Flakes of it falling on yellow leaves.  The first real snow of the season.

Funny how you might want some comfort food at a time like this.

“Do not think about doing it, but actually do it now. That is, be aware of the trees, the palm tree, the sky; hear the crows cawing; see the light on the leaf, the colour of the sari, the face; then move inwardly. You can observe, you can be aware choicelessly of outward things. It is very easy. But to move inwardly and to be aware without condemnation, without justification, without comparison is more difficult. Just be aware of what is taking place inside you—your beliefs, your fears, your dogmas, your hopes, your frustrations, your ambitions, and all the rest of the things. Then the unfolding of the conscious and the unconscious begins. You have not to do a thing.”

– Jiddu Krishnamurti

If you were to spend some time — say a month — away from the city, up among the Colorado mountains, in the high forests there, then you might eventually notice that your senses had become sharper, more sensitive.  That they were now acutely alert to subtleties in your environment which you had entirely failed to notice before you came to the mountains.  But much more likely, you would not really notice how sharp your senses had become until you came back down from the mountains and returned to the city.

It’s a story I’ve heard on several occasions from people here in Colorado.   Someone goes off to live in the wilderness for a few weeks or a month.  Afterwards, they return to the city only to find the city changed when they were gone.  Now, the city lights are much too bright; the city noises are too loud; the rhythm of events is senseless and abrupt; the smells are poignant and ugly.  Of course, what’s really happened here is not that their city has changed — instead, their senses have become sharper, more sensitive. 

I was thinking about that earlier this morning in connection with understanding the writings of Jiddu Krishnamurti.

In my experience, it seems much easier to understand Krishnamurti — to the extent he can be understood — when something has made us more sensitive, sharpened us.   Not primarily sharpened our senses, but rather sharpened our mind.  I suspect this is true not just of Krishnamurti’s writings, but also of much other wisdom literature.

Perhaps it sounds strange at first, but Krishnamurti should be read when one is in love.  I think love makes us more sensitive to what he is saying.  Love tunes both our inner and outer awareness more or less like a month in the wilderness tunes our senses.  Suddenly, one not only sees something of what Krishnamurti is talking about, but his message might even become urgent.

If you really want to understand certain aspects of the city, you would do well to experience the city with sharpened senses — with senses that have not been dulled down by too recent an overexposure to the brash, melodramatic sights, sounds, and smells of the city.   And if you really want to understand certain aspects of Krishnamurti’s writings, then you will do well to experience his writings with a mind that is as sensitive as possible — that has, perhaps, been made as sensitive as love can make a mind.  Otherwise, it seems very difficult to understand Krishnamurti.

Why are some societies more religious than other societies?

The traditional explanation has been that the less educated people in the society are, the more likely they are to be religious.  But now there’s a new theory — one based on a study of 60 nations — that says education is not the most powerful predictor of religiosity.   Instead, economic security is.

According to this new study, the more economically secure people in a society are, the less likely they are to be religious.  And the less economically secure people in a society are, the more likely they are to be religious.

It will be interesting if it holds up to scrutiny.  Check the theory out here.

“Have done a great deal of meditation and has been good. I hope you are doing it too – begin by being aware of every thought- feeling – all day, the nerves and the brain – then become quiet, still – this is what cannot be done through control – then really begins meditation. Do it with thoroughness.”

– Jiddu Krishnamurti in a letter to Nandini Mehta

…

“Meditation is not something different from daily life; do not go off into the corner of a room and meditate for ten minutes, then come out of it and be a butcher-both metaphorically and actually. Meditation is part of life, not something different from life.”

– Jiddu Krishnamurti, Meditations, page 10.

…

“Meditation is one of the greatest arts in life-perhaps the greatest, and one cannot possibly learn it from anybody. That is the beauty of it. It has no technique and therefore no authority. When you learn about yourself, watch yourself, watch the way you walk, how you eat, what you say, the gossip, the hate, the jealousy-if you are aware of all that in yourself, without any choice, that is part of meditation.”

“So meditation can take place when you are sitting in a bus or walking in the woods full of light and shadows, or listening to the singing of birds or looking at the face of your wife or child.”

– Jiddu Krishnamurti, Meditations, page 2.

…

Q. You seem to object even to our sitting quietly everyday to observe the movement of thought. Is this, by your definition, a practice, a method and therefore without value?

K: Now the questioner asks. What is wrong with sitting quietly every morning for twenty minutes, in the afternoon another twenty minutes and perhaps another twenty minutes in the evening or longer – what is wrong with it? By sitting quietly you can relax, you can observe your thinking, your reactions, your responses and your reflexes. What is the motive of those who sit quietly by themselves, or together in a group? What is the motive behind the desire to sit quietly for half an hour every day? Is it not important to find out why you want to do this? Is it because somebody has told you that if you sit quietly you will have para-psychological experiences, that you will attain some kind of peace, some kind of understanding, some kind of enlightenment, or some kind of power?…

So it is important – before we plunge into all this- to find out what is your motive, what it is that you want. But you do not do that. You are so eager and gullible; somebody promises something and you want it. If you examine the motive, you see that it is a desire to achieve something – like a businessman’s desire to earn a lot of money. That is his urge. Here the psychological urge is to have something that a guru, or an instructor, promises.You do not question what he promises, you do not doubt what he promises…

Is it true? Who are you to tell me what to do? then you will find that sitting quietly, without understanding your motive, leads to all kinds of illusory psychological trouble. If that is the intention of sitting quietly, then it is not worth it. But if while sitting quietly without any motive, or walking quietly by yourself or with somebody, you watch the trees, the birds, the rivers and the sunshine on the leaves, in that very watching you are also watching yourself. You are not striving, not making tremendous efforts to achieve something …

Is it not possible to be quiet, naturally – to look at a person, or to listen to a song, or to listen to what somebody is saying quietly, without resistance, without saying, “I must change, I must do this, I must do that”. Just to be quiet? Is it possible to sit, or stand, or walk quietly, without any promptings from another, without any reward or desire for extraordinary super-physical sensory experiences? Begin at the most rational level; then one can go very far.

– Jiddu Krishnamurti, Saanen, July 1980.

George H.W. Bush is the former president who once declared, “…I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”

His remark was so out of line that several on the Right felt obligated to deny he made it.  (But believing what the Right says — without independent evidence in support of it — takes a remarkable  leap of faith these days; and, so far as I know, Bush himself has not denied he made the remark.)

Given his track record, it really shouldn’t surprise anyone that Bush seems to think Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann are on the same level as various Right wing pundits.  That is, he recently referred to Maddow and Olbermann as “sick puppies” — just as if the two were the liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

To be sure, Maddow and Olbermann are editorial journalists who not only report facts but also give their opinions about the facts they report.  Limbaugh and Beck would love to be considered on the same level as them, for it would increase their credibility.  But neither Limbaugh nor Beck take nearly the same care with the facts as do Maddow and Olbermann.  The two sides might be equally opinionated, but one side usually checks its facts much more honestly than the other.

When people like George Bush imply or state that there is an equivalence between Left and Right in this country, they are living in the past.  What they say might once have been true.  But with the rise of such cynics as Rush Limbaugh, and such cynical organizations as WorldNetDaily and FOX News, the current Right has become quantitatively less reliable as a source of fact than the current Left.

At least that’s how I see it.  Someday, the pendulum will swing again and it will be the Left who is the least trustworthy.  But for now, I believe anyone who thinks, like George Bush,  that Rachel Maddow is as unreliable as Glenn Beck has not been paying attention.  Certainly not been paying attention.

“If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.”

– Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama

“Your belief in God is merely an escape from your monotonous, stupid and cruel life.”

– Jiddu Krishnamurti

The full quote and context can be found by clicking on the above link.