J. Krishnamurti - Ojai 1984 - Public Talk 3 - Attention is like a fire

Even in old age he is just speaking with such love and compassion.

I have been involved with the teachings of this man for some 45 years. I have put some of his work in my book. I have showed videos of his talks going back decades and one talk really hit me most directly. It was a talk (I believe in the Ojai around1980 or so) where he said that thought had created many things and that thought had created God. He said, "I know you're not going to like it but there it is". There was a great deal of restlessness in the crowd at this point and one gentleman got up and walked out of the talk and into the trees. I have tried for over a decade to find this talk but it seems it has been removed from the archives. I have contacted the foundation and the Krishnamurti Library but have still not been able to locate this talk. If anyone knows the specific talk and can locate it I would be most grateful and most appreciative.

J. Krishnamurti. I find with him. Understanding so you don't get trapped in thinking ! I learned that you meditation is a 24/7 event. Every step or moment of your day is complete! The past is what is ! Not aloud the thinking to get fragmented, I could have, should have, thinking be in conflict with being of NOW ! Be fully aware in this moment! By doing this completely. You empty your thoughts. Bring order. From that order you start to get glimpses of what Krishnamurti spoke of ! Glimpses of it. Your transmission happens In stillness. You CAN'T THINK YOUR WAY THERE ! It happens in the absences of your thinking. Is an unexplainable knowing of peace , Love , Joy ! ! ! I have been there few times by accident. That's why Krishnamurti spend his life doing it and sharing it . To whom could hear ! With that enhancement to be selflessly being. Does this make sense? Not to get trapped in , I did this , I am that, I am . Meaning personal. But to be in communing together with the nameless. As he did ! He invited you to join in passionately by all his efforts ! !

I am a spiritual vagabond but i always come back to "K". Salute.

🥰You never ever die you just start living ....🙏🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻

Unselfish, filled with love and compassion and sharp awaked Intelligence KRISHNAMURTI SIR had,,,,!!!!

50:20 Attention is like a fire, when that attention is there that thing which is sorrow, the loneliness, the pain, the anxiety, the tears, when there is that complete attention all that goes, disappears. Attention is a flame. Sorrow, the root meaning of that word, is also passion. The ending of sorrow is passion, not lust. And we never have passion, we want pleasure. Passion is something extraordinarily different. Where there is the ending of sorrow there is passion - it is not your passion or my passion, it is passion. And that's part of love. Where there is love there is compassion. And where there is this extraordinary passion of compassion there is intelligence, and that intelligence acts - that intelligence is not yours, or mine, or X Y Z's

21:18, psychological e inwardly accepting will destroy the integrity 24:29 The future is now 28:04 change cannot have 36:52 Time is the enemy of change. 37:42 what is action? 51:22 attention is like a fire 1:10:00 who are you

J. Krishnamurti exuding love, softly encouraging, empowering, liberating💎♾️🌹

Enough insight in the first 10 minutes to change lives,

To go beyond the words..."in that perception you and the speaker disappear." 🙏

What a beautiful human being he was,god bless him and all of you🤗🆘☯️

Omg we need 3 more of Sir Krishna....🙏🙏💕🙏💕💕🙏

I admire Krishnamurti and he speaks truth most of the time. He also tends to speak in extremes - all or nothing. He says "We have no love" while i say "We have love, but there are selfish elements; it's impure, limited." The fact of the matter is that we can genuinely care for people, even though we may be attached to them, or have vested interests. There are shades of grey; we're complicated, multi-faceted. He focuses too much on our negative aspects. It's fine to acknowledge and go into them, provided one is willing to admit we have redeeming qualities, however limited - including the capacity to inquire, to examine our psyche. Moreover, he keeps stating that we are memory, anger, and so on, not mentioning the fact that we're not only those since we can observe them coming and going. If we were only memory or anger, we couldn't begin to examine those; we'd be trapped. He neglects to point out that in addition to being anger, we are also the intelligence that can inquire into anger. We are not merely our egoistic tendencies. My approach toward memory is nuanced. While it's true that being dominated by memory is an obstructing factor (where love is concerned), it can also serve love. Imagine for a moment that you couldn't remember your beloved, due to an accident or brain damage. Not only would you fail to recognize your beloved; your love for that person would be effectively gone. That person would be a stranger. Perhaps not quite a stranger; you might still be instinctively drawn to him/her, though the love would be undeveloped, due to a lack of personal history. Or alternatively, memory can play the following role (in a different context): part of the history, for example, is that the beloved once had saved your life by donating one of her organs to you. So you remember that, the memory of which enhances your love for that person. In other words, a shared history can be both limiting (constricting) AND a source of richness, depending on what that history is and/or how it's approached. Or consider it this way. You love someone and have been physically apart from that person for, say, a week. That person went on a business trip to Chicago, while you're sitting in your sofa in Florida. So you remember that person; you recall him/her frequently. Clearly love and memory are playing off of each other; they are intimately connected. You remember so-and-so as you do precisely because you love the person; love spurs on the memory, the recollection. Were you not in love, you would probably not remember him/her, or at least would think of that individual rarely or infrequently. The point is that memory is not merely functional; it gives love a sense of direction. Question: how do you know you love him/her without memory (of that person)? You can be wholly immersed in the moment, to the point that an egoistic sense of identity is not. But that doesn't mean the whole past is wiped out, nor should it be that way. You're perfectly aware of what you and your partner did a year ago, and that memory, as a part of a story, can be truly beautiful and a contributing factor to the love you have now. Yet memory can become rotten too; yes, it can prevent one from living fully in the present. However, not necessarily. Let's look at memory in a different context. A judge or jury wouldn't, in the manner of Krishnamurti, say of someone found guilty: "But we're not meeting him now; our decision is based on what he did in the past; we're tethered to the past; we have no relationship to what he is NOW." Do you see what I'm driving at? It's not merely a pragmatic point I'm making. In a very real sense, the past actually MATTERS where our relationships are concerned. People respond to us in part, quite naturally, on the basis of our past acts. If we're open-minded and generous, we see that a person can change; a person isn't bound by the past. But still the past matters - and it matters with regards to love as well. I have often heard Krishnamurti claiming that we're the rest of humanity, all basically, essentially the same. Well - yes and no. He would make out the differences to be superficial or just minor variations. This is where I disagree. Sure, we all suffer hardships, we all experience sorrow and anxiety at some point, we're born alone and we die alone, we all fall ill and die eventually. However, degree and context matter. The fact is that some people are much happier than others, or some are much more miserable than others. The situation of a person who loves his job, who has a beautiful caring wife, and many material comforts is very different from the situation of a homeless person or someone living in a 3rd world country. The latter may be fortunate to get just one decent meal a day. My point is that this gap is not minor; it's a yawning chasm. Although the one with a great job and beautiful wife suffers, his suffering cannot be compared with that of one about whom no one cares and who winds up dying in the gutter. Another point of contention with Krishnamurti. Traditional gurus have long made the claim (among them Ramana Maharshi) that we need to remove the obscurations and the Self is naturally there. Krishnamurti calls this a theory merely, and goes about negation only. It's a commendable approach for the rigorous few, but it won't work for the majority of seekers. It's not enough to state what one takes to be true; one must be sensitive to the individual needs of the seeker. In other words, one must see where the seeker is emotionally, and find a way that most resonates with him/her if progress is to be made. Most people need the reassurance that the Self is already there; without that assurance, that hope, they won't proceed. That's just the way it is; you can't simply fault them for lacking in seriousness. That's why, as a teacher, Ramana was more effective in a way: for he considered where the student was psychologically and emotionally. His approach was multi-faceted.

GOD bless HIM!

Thank You 💞🙏

Master of focus.

love this inquiry

About 40 minutes into the video, he mentioned something which struck me —- We work for a reward or in fear of a punishment; we never work for work’s sake… Is there an action which is for itself? Is Love (such) an action in itself? This is same as what the Bhagavad Gita teaches: To work you have the right, not to the fruits thereof… But of course, K goes deeper into it, and explains how action with respect to time (probably by time, he means future and action done with a motive to gain rewards in the future, for that action) creates conflict…

Thank you🙏❤