The man who flowers is the man who is, who is not becoming.

“All our thinking and activity is based on becoming, is it not? I am using that word becoming very simply, not philosophically, but in the ordinary sense of wanting to become something either in this world or in the so-called spiritual world. If we can understand this process of wanting to become something, then I think we shall have understood what sorrow is, because it is the desire to become that gives to the mind the soil in which sorrow can grow . . . We have never a moment when there is no ‘becoming’ and only ‘being’ – that ‘being’ which is nothing. But that ‘being’ which is nothing cannot possibly be understood if we do not fully grasp the significance of ‘becoming'”

“Is there not a difference between the flowering mind and the becoming mind? The becoming mind is a mind that is always growing, becoming, enlarging, gathering experience as knowledge. We know that process full well in our daily life, with all its results, with all its conflicts, its miseries and strife, but we do not know the life of flowering. And is there not a difference between the two which we have to discover – not by trying to demarcate, to separate, but to discover – in the process of our living? When we discover this, we may perhaps be able to set aside this ambition, the way of choice, and discover a flowering, which is the way of life, which may be true action.”

-J Krishnamurti

11 thoughts on “The man who flowers is the man who is, who is not becoming.

  1. Which mind was JK using when he was having an affair with his friend’s wife for 25 years? Did he set aside the way of choice when his lingam flowered and drove him to true action?

    Why do you hold up these people as being some sort of icon to aspire to? You don’t really know who or what they were or how they really lived. He learned his lines well and charmed a lot of people. You can only become what you know. it’s the way it works. Don’t let your imagination run away with you, not that it’s going anywhere.

  2. Brilliant anonymous, assuming you are the same anonymous, since you don’t identify yourself. So, do you know the ins and outs of what happened, to be able to pass judgement?

    I am content to take them as pointers to figure out for myself the truth or not of them. But you really seem to have a chip on your shoulder about engagement any rational thought or teaching, and from prior encounters, seem to get somewhat touchy and ‘misunderstood’ when challenged.

    If you’d like to engage in a rational discussion about what is true or not in the above, or anything else for that matter, lets do it. If however you just like to be pretentiously superior with drive-through supercilious comments coming from one who has achieved this great realisation of emptiness or whatever, then frankly my dear . . .

    • The pointers point to more points, endlessly. Rational discussion is pointless in these matters. For every view, there is another competing one. You can only interpret anything someone says with what is already in your repertoire. But, this is something you cannot come to terms with, so you lash out at me and others who cannot and will not play the game with you. You can remain in the parlour with JK. It’s safe there.

  3. Interestingly, some of the other bloggers on this site just had a offline discussion about the ability of rational discussion to get you to truth vs vedantic sruti. I suspect you would discount both?

    So the question is how does one arrive at this realisation of non-duality, non-separateness, non-ego that is talked about? It seems there are a few possibilities.

    (0) Non-duality is not true, doesn’t matter and is irrelevant. OK, I think there are rational and scientific arguments for why it is true, but fine.

    (1) You don’t bother with any of this, and continue to live the life that most people lead.

    (2) You feel that there must be more to life than this, and immerse yourself in one of the religions, to find some peace. You may come across vedanta in this, and then take up traditional scriptural study as a route to moksha. In any event there is a level of faith / belief in this that gives you satisfaction of knowledge.

    (3) You hear from a Tony Parsons, or from someone like you, that there is nothing to be done, the ego is just conditioning, and all the thoughts of separation are illusory. In fact, nothing can be done, because whatever is done, is done by a conditioned mind in its own pattern. So having heard this, and presumably with some level of minimal thought processing (which must be conditioned?), you then switch of seeking and revert to (1).

    (4) You try to think out for yourself what you can, processing what you can from whatever sources you come across. At some point during that, you may conclude in Socratic vein, that all that I really know is I don’t know, and then find a naturally still mind. Or not, who knows.

    In any of these options, thought is in operation, until perhaps the penultimate stages. There is no way to come upon this without thought. I’m open to suggestions otherwise?

    If your point is that the people on this website already know enough, and they should give up discussions and thinking, because it is pointless, fair enough. But surely you have gone through a thought process, or had a flash of insight, to arrive at that point. If others haven’t, then by your logic, there is nothing you can do about it?

    Or is it that you are trying to continually pointing out that we are conditioned by authorities, and so can never be free? But then, don’t we need to think that out for ourselves, and your role (if you want one) is to use whatever skilful means you have at your disposal to persuade us otherwise. Of course, you don’t need to, but then your interventions are gratuitous.

    Best wishes,

    • What do you hope to come upon? Only something you’ve heard about, read about. Thought is not going to reveal any so called ‘mysteries’ to you or anyone else. It cannot do it. It is not in its nature to do so. This is what you cannot come to terms with. You organize and rationalize everything. This is what thought does. It is your experience and the experience of others that you are hoping will lead someplace at some time. It is important to see this, not Brahman or Truth or God. You cannot see those things and they may not exist except in your imagination which is thought.

      All of this is an intellectual exercise, a hobby for you and everyone else. Me, too. But you are too involved, identified, with the search, to see the futility of all of this. You cannot watch yourself fall apart and merge with the infinite. What else can I say? It’s a myth. Death will stop all pursuits. Then, what?

      And, maybe you can stop being condescending to me? But, you would have to face who you think you are, first.

  4. Anonymous,

    I can see why thought , because it is conditioned, cannot reveal anything. That may be true; it may not. OK.

    You have pointed that out – that I am deluded in believing that thought can lead to insight. OK, I see the possibility of what you say as being true. But sincerely, then what?

    Some grace / accident / what have you happens, by which ‘you’ merge with the infinite?

    I’m not trying to be funny or condescending. I’m actually trying to understand what you are aiming to get at. Is it that by pointing out the ridiculousness of our discussions and thinking, you hope to jolt us out of the thought process? Or are you just saying we are wasting our time on this website discussing such matters – and we may as well go out and ‘enjoy’ ourselves?

    • You are still holding on to some kind of ‘realization’ as the outcome of your search. If you were not, there would be no question about grace, accident, or insight. All of these experiences always point to the experiencer, which is still part of the functioning of the brain. You can’t change this. It is there in your make-up. It is cultural. You’ve been taught to seek something beyond yourself. Whether you look inside or outside, you cannot find this ‘beyond’.

      So, what is there to aim at? Perhaps you begin to enjoy yourself when you are no longer trying to get anywhere or understand anything. Knowing nothing about Vedanta does not make one stupid or ignorant. When you drop these concepts because you see that they lead nowhere, there is just a simple awareness operating in the midst of all experiencing which is part of being human. This is all you need or want. You can retire the books, the debates, the analysis, and everything else associated with the search and its fulfillment. It’s a total immersion. And, probably, no one will notice anything unusual about you. If you find yourself still asking about enlightenment, you are still believing in thought and its promises, and still trying to get something. This has to be fully comprehended. There is tremendous fear at the root of wanting to survive and be a knower, a receiver, a savant. It all has to be given up. Some say ‘given over’. But words don’t approach any real description and eventually we get lost in them. This is not an easy thing to come to and most of us have to struggle tremendously. But it’s not the struggle that gets you anywhere. It’s letting go of it.

  5. When you say that these concepts lead nowhere, does that mean for the average man on the street, who has not considered such questions, he should continue in that stream, because it just doesn’t matter? I can sympathise with that point of view.

    But then, for the person who is trying to find some answers, do you just tell them not to bother, they are in a futile search and so go back to making the most of the life that they have? Or do you try to show them, inevitably through some concepts, that the concepts that they have of the separate ego, etc may not be true, and are worthwhile examining? A thorn to remove a thorn as it were.

    If you concur with the latter – which I presume you do since you are engaging in this website discussion – then it must be a question of what is the simplest, most effective means to convey this fact of conditioning and of the ego? Vedanta is a route to convey this; there have been others. Or are you saying that vedanta and the discussions on this website are over-conceptualising what is a relatively simple thing to be conveyed? How would you convey this to a beginner?

    • I’m not sure why you are asking me these questions about the man on the street and the seekers. What is the difference? I have no skillful means for anyone. Why would I need it? I’m not trying to convey anything hidden or mysterious or even suggesting that there is something to acheive. Have you been able to remove your thorn? I don’t think so and Vedanta is ultimately no help in this matter. Explanations do nothing to your own state except get you thinking about thinking. You think one concept will undo another. It doesn’t, it just replaces the former concept. This is something you have to see for yourself. Either you are interested or you are not. Either you are fooling yourself, or you are not. If you are looking for a way, you are fooling yourself. If you think you can help someone, you are also fooling yourself.

      To anyone who is not familiar with the jargon of Vedanta, they would have to learn and re-program themselves to see the world through the Vedantic filter. This is all that is going on here. it seems overly concerned with concepts, analysis, and systemization of the universe. It is exceedingly conceptual and lends itself to scholarly pursuits. For some reason, there is an evangelical thread that runs through this in the sense that Vedantists always try to get you to see their point of view because they have memorized a structure and feel that if only someone would see how wonderful this structure is, they could be put on a path of salvation. This is religious thinking to the max, but Vedantists say they are not religious or that it is not a religion. It’s so much easier to convey simple matters with ordinary words and concepts rather than ‘special’ language which has its own built-in dangers.

      These are just observations. Of course, if you are a Vedantist hobbyist, then a site like this tries to explain what Vedanta is or isn’t to both those who are fellow hobbyists and those that want to know more about it. It’s a form of entertainment. Perhaps my kind of questioning and dialog doesn’t sit well with the members. Usually this is a sign of cultism. An open door is the best remedy for that.

  6. Questioning and dialogue is fine. But given what you have just written – that it is foolish to think you can help anyone – I’d like to understand what your purpose is in writing, questioning and dialogue? If it is not to help, is it to point out how deluded we are (but then you say you can’t help, so what’s the point), or simply to pass time?

    • Questioning me is alright, but questioning yourself is better. I can make up any answer I want. What good does it do you? You will only interpret according to what you know and come to a conclusion. The conclusion is meaningless. Surely you must see this. You have been chasing answers your whole life but you have not really found anything substantial except theories and concepts. You ask and I answer. It’s a mechanical process, nothing more. Maybe you should go out and enjoy yourself. 🙂

Leave a Reply