Aptitude of the Aloneness...........

Aloneness can be, only when influence is not. Aloneness is action, which is not the result of a reaction, which is not the response to a challenge or a stimulus.

- Krishnamurti, On Love and Loneliness P. 150-Madras, 5 February 1950

Aptitude of the Aloneness

When you sit alone in a room full of people conversing and materializing in their drama, what goes through one's mind? If you are in such a inhabitant space with a vast mixture of personalities, how could such a mood creep into one's consciousness? The aptitude of such a mood could derive from the guise of loneliness; however, does this lead to aloneness? For there is a very wide divide between alone and lonely. I could explain it vaguely, but this would only create a great ambiguity, so my explication will bear in mind the sentiments of the statements I just scripted. With out further ado, what is the measure of your bounds in aloneness?

This subject of aloneness has been on my mind for quite sometime with a collective amount of other things to follow. I am not afraid of loneliness, which is why aloneness has not shutter my curiosity. I love the moments of my aloneness. It has been amply introspective in my quest for understanding my behavior and my attitude in the present inhabitants and the present people I meet. There is nothing like having a mental massage everyday when you open your mind to the nuances of knowledge, fruit from the tree of metaphysics. The refreshing vigor is a challenge to the personality of your self-inhibitions and your present transgressions.

How I have fell into this situation is a whole other subject not directly related to this discussion; henceforth, I have learned that circumstances have a funny way of peeling away at the skin of the core. The existence of the real nutrients are buried under those layers of skin. The taste is a fruition of transgressions and progressions unlike any superficial entity we are granted to obtain by mere material gain. The sensations are uncanny and the experience is a voyage, but you can't read about it or talk about; no, you have to be about it, apart of it, and represent it. It's unconditional. There is no other way to put it! Aloneness is just only touching under the primary layer of the experience. You want to go deeper, you will have to shed until inevitable acquiesce. 

My conclusive point is where will you veer after you have manifested this process? Our lives must learn to cultivate some core or sanity. We have to obtain something other than concrete idiosyncrasies that stimulate our senses like children riding a merry-go-round. There must be some other horizon to climb, to experience, to obtain, in order to transform. Humans must acquire a sort of adaptability to any given situation or given moment in their environments. Just like habits, they have to be learned and to be unlearned. Aloneness, derives from this same principle; a principle derived from knowledge and from fate.

"Just as we attach to one form, we transform to another. This alone is just the first step toward an enlightened path toward progress. The accolade is the result of the knowledge gained and the recollections extinguished."

- Ryuzen

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO LOVE, TO PLEASURE?

To go deep into this question of what love is, one has to have a wide, deep mind to find out, not just make verbal assertions. Why does pleasure play such an important part in our lives? [1]
Krishnamurti, On Love and Loneliness
– P.9 Brockwood Park,
11 September 1971




Krishnamurti has challenged my question of love from his book entitled, “On Love and Loneliness” . I remember having various relationships with different types of women and not too many of ended on a good note. Furthermore, I regressed deeper into my past relationships. In this book first couple of chapters, it discusses “Love” and what it means in a Victorian and/or modern term, yet, the universal question lingers in my own thoughts: what is love? What does it mean? Where does it begin? When will it end? These questions I will try to answer in clarity, brevity, and modernity to our curious natures and to our intellectual prowls thirsting to obtain some ground on its lingering enigma. So, what is love?

What is love?

What does love mean? Let’s use the lexicon for this word, which derives from the Greek word erotas meaning “intimate love,” or Latin word lubere meaning “to please.” The lexicon for the word states, [2] “Love is the emotion of strong affection and personal attachment.[1] In philosophical context, love is a virtue representing all of human kindness, compassion, and affection. In religious context, love is not just a virtue, but the basis for all being ("God is love"[2]), and the foundation for all divine law (Golden Rule).”[2] Theses definitions have a firm attachment to “love”, affinity, but more so, the word ‘pleasure’ perceives a stricter accord with the word love. However when we think of the word “pleasure,” as positioned to love, do we define it as ‘superficial’ or ‘insightful’ in concurrence with love? Pleasure is something we all have experience in other avenues in life. Love has a synonymous implication with pleasure; thus, we see pleasure as the same as love. Or we see it as different from what is love? What could it mean to be different, but the same, as love?

What does it mean?

Love could mean many of the same, but different entities, in accord with pleasure. The basic principle behind love is to obtain it, as one would with an object of priceless affection, in which no one else has.

When one objectifies someone or something out of love they are taking a hard risk toward a coarse experience. How is this so? This creates a route toward attachment. When you are attached to something it will be very difficult to break-free once the affair, event is differentiated. As someone would grief over a deceased loved one, you will go through stages of depression with a bruised psyche leaving you breathlessly frail to malicious vices. Detachment is the key to any situation in love and in pleasure, in order to dissipate any dismal effects upon the psyche further differentiate any items leading the affair, event into a dysfunctional asunder . When you truly understand love, pleasure, you will not rely doubtful for you have already combined the two into one. For to love, you have learned to let go, set it free, and let it decided what it truly is to you and to itself (excuse me, for my objective context of referring to love, pleasure as “it,” but my point must be expressed in a stern and easily comprehensible manner). You must comprehend detach, in order to, reattach to be liberated. When you are free within yourself, you can be free of the other people and things in your life you hold dear to your heart. This is love and it fulfills a pleasure in itself. Yet, I find myself saying, “where could this love, pleasure begin? Where and how would it take hold of one?”

Where does it begin?

A beginning always has a starting point. In love, pleasure, there is always a starting point, which is the source to attract its attention to the person, thing or event; this noun being referred to as: the self. The self has its desires, its attraction toward certain elements, traits, and personalities from the environments we inhabit. This inhabitance will lead us to many desirable entities suitable for our psyche’s pleasure center (neurologically, this would be the hypothalamus and medulla a.k.a. amygdala, area for emotions and memory).

In memory, we seek what was once pleasure or what is present as a source of pleasure leading to high-emotional intake into the memory, the mind. This would begin to produce what we could call, “(puppy) love.” The first, rich taste of something much more profound than what we could touch or see in an instant as called love, pleasure. Love is never something that could be made up or fake, regardless of the manner one views love. There are many dysfunctional and functional aspects of love, leading one to a mood of pleasure. We all have our idea of what love is, yet we cannot figure how it starts or why we love in this manner. What should it matter? To each it own. Whatever makes you happy should suffice, but does this adequacy include someone’s demise or destruction? Like I said, love is a whole other word than what is defined, there is no true answer, yet the receiving end is pleasure. For many, pleasure is defined in a manner that is negative, vile, and digressive. It is the main focal matter for inspiration with the result being love. This becomes a two-way street, in which some may travel, yet how far? Furthermore, let me ask this one last injection to influence this point: where does it end?

When does it end?

For love to be successful there must be more then what is sought in pleasure. What is it worth to receive more of love or pleasure or both in equanimity? The answer should be obvious, but before I toss in my conclusive answer here is another apple to nourish. As I have stated, detachment from what we perceive as love is the huge factor. Also, the self must be clear in it distinction between love, pleasure and how they operate whether you have one without the other they must both exist in some axis.

Time is your only tool to monitor the calculable presumption of where your love may lead and how long your love may last. If you are a merciless sycophant bent on sexual prowls then you can already assume your calculation with risk, reward, and backlash, hence the time to evade before danger strikes. Sycophancy has its rewards, but its multitude of repetition will eventually have the moniker dwindling in demise and in lasting isolation. There has to be an end to love, but when I say end this, I am referring to stages of love, pleasure. Love end in the embodiment of its connection. If, there is the connection between the person(s), object(s), event(s), and subject(s), etc. then, there will be an apex for everything to reach a conclusion. Once this point is reached, there has to be a decision on whether there is more possibility if there is a relation formed, or this connection has achieved enough to satisfy its pleasurable epitome. However, can we say there is ever an end to love? I know this much, life has too many days, too many nights, and too many hours for me to want to end. I love life itself, and the pleasures I receive are in multitudes of latitudes of the word itself. If I ever met a women who makes me feel this way, then I would know I was correct. Love is possible, and pleasure is surmountable. Or is it the other way around?

When I consider that person as mine, is there love? Obviously, not. The moment my mind creates a hedge round that person, as ‘mine’, there is no love [;] the fact is, my mind is doing all the time. That is what we are discussing, to see how the mind is working, and perhaps, being aware of it, the mind itself will be quiet. [1]

Krishnamurti, On Love and Loneliness
- P.20, with Students at Rajghat School
19 December 1952






REFERENCES

[1] Krishnamurti, Jiddu. (1994). On love and loneliness. HarperOne.

[2] Love. (2010, August 5). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 22:31, August 5, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Love&oldid=377373914

ESP: What could one discover in the mind's eye?

A Discovery of My Mind's “Third-Eye?!”

The morning of July 29^th, 2010 on a Thursday, I was riding the metro bus on the way to my security gig at the Los Angeles Coliseum for the X Games. As I was sitting in my seat staring out of the metro bus window, I kept thinking of the prefix "Syl". I was unscrambling it in my head in a few different scenarios then coming up with the word "Sylvia."

When I arrived at the Coliseum, I walked to the security office, just across the street from the Los Angeles Sports Arena, to sign in and to grab a yellow jacket to get suited up for the shift. I waited for 30 to 45 minutes to have them assign me a post. I was assigned near the front entrance of the Coliseum where the torch is lite and the wall on the right-side of the entrance has 5 large iron-cast placards with the names of every Olympic Gold Medalist names imprinted on these placards. In July 28^th until August 12^th the 23^rd Olympiad existed in Los Angeles.

To return to my previous situation, I was riding the bus and the prefix "Syl" came up in my mind. The spot where I was assigned had these placards right in front of me to stare at for the endless 8 hours I was posted in this area. As I kept inspecting the placards for a bit when all of a sudden there were two different names with the prefix “Syl”:

· Under the swimming section, there were a group of names and under the “3 Meter Springboard” champion the name printed was a Sylvie Bernier from Canada.

· Second: under the section entitled IOC (International Olympic Committee) there was a list of name of the “Executive Board Members” with the name Sylvio De Magalhaes Padilha from Brazil.

When I noticed the prefix “Syl” iron casted on the placards, about a couple hours later, then the subject crept into my mind about “third-eye.” I remember in General Psychology, and X-Files episodes, that there lies a sensory perception far beyond the human psyche of intangible means, what one would call a "third eye"; this is known as ESP (Extra Sensory Perception). ESP involves reception of information not gained through the recognized physical senses, but sensed with the mind.

I began to research for more conclusive information to back up this subject of "Extra Sensory Perception," and I was very astonished and very surprised to find out that many psychologists from the Parapsychology field (Parapsychology is the study of paranormal psychic phenomena, including ESP) find ESP to be very inclusive; however, the evidence presented is not very significant. For instance, there have been numerous studies published, 50 to be exact, in which 33 [of these studies] were contributed by investigators other than Rhine and the Duke University group. Of these [33] studies, 61% of these independent studies reported significant results suggestive of ESP [1].

Even though, parapsychologists generally regard testing, such as the “Ganzfeld experiment,” to provide compelling evidence for the existence of ESP; the scientific community does not accept this due to the disputed evidence base upon the lack of a theory that would explain ESP, and the lack of experimental techniques which can provide reliably sufficient evidence [1]. In truth, the skepticism has been established based upon the idea of concrete evidence necessary to provide sufficient explanation for this phenomenon. Basically, the consensus is "if apples do exist, as one could perceive, then what tree did it come from or does a tree exist at all?" This is the motivation behind much skepticism; the belief that without evidence or "concrete" proof, fact alone will not suffice the curiosity of the scholar or the information seeker.

Let me give you another apple to chew here about this phenomenon, many test have reported saying ESP has occur spontaneously in conditions that are not scientifically controlled. Such experiences, often, have been reported to be much stronger and to be more obvious than those observed in laboratory (controlled) experiments. (However, it has proven extremely difficult (perhaps impossible) to replicate such extraordinary experiences under controlled scientific conditions.)[1] This statement of facts could lightly suffice many answers to questions pertaining to ESP’s origins.

Whatever one may think, and regardless of my story in an empirical point-of-view, ESP has been given various names. In the 19th century it was called "cryptesthesia," later it was labeled "relesthesia," which since became clairvoyance, or "seeing in the distance." It was Rhine who coined the term "general extrasensory perception" (GESP) to include both telepathy and clairvoyance. Later the term psi was designated to cover ESP and PK (Psychokinesis).[2] The phenomenon is already wide-open for interpretation and investigation. As this article has suggested, scientific laboratory testing can't zero in on a specific marker to how ESP or "clairvoyance" exist in the human mind. This type of state is one that will come and go as the wind, an element to “the ether” that exists in the collective unconscious of human existence.

I believe this is a great sign for psychologist in parapsychology field. There is a vast opening in the gap to present many facts and items to support the existence of the "unknown." We could derive much evidence from theorist like analytical psychologist like Carl Jung who believed that with ESP, “the conscious mind has subliminal psychic access to the collective unconscious, a vast repository of accumulative wisdom and experience of the human race."[2] The consciousness is a vast area of the psyche with much to offer in content and in context.

I was in a meditative state during my moment of "supraconsciousness." I have acquired the understanding of what ESP is about and how affective it may be for the subject who has experienced such a phenomenon.

To conclude this posting, I will access a question to whomever may read this; even with the minimal evidence presented in this article, what could you derive of yourself, if or had you, had an experience in a phenomenon similar to this situation? What I am posing here is how honest you can be about yourselves when skeptical about anything unexplainable to your unconscious thought. This area in psychology (parapsychology to be exact,) tests our decisions and our attitudes toward skepticism, particularly, in cases dealing with phenomenon of the "unforeseen" in the existence of the human iris. We have all heard the phrase "seeing is believing," and this story of mine represents what ESP derives from "a state of unconscious synergy."

I will conclude with this last phrase: The point being made is that when dealing with psychic phenomena all factors must be considered when examining the performance [2]. This is where you should reference your answer to the question above I seek of you above. Until the next posting take care and may your conscious be your resolute guide to success.

All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else. - Buddha

References:

[1] Extrasensory perception. (2010, July 24). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:22, July 30, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extrasensory_perception&oldid=375259230

[2] (2003). Iceberg C-21 Breaks off Shackleton Ice Shelf. Retrieved Mar. 25, 2003, from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC. Web site: http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/e/esp_extrasensory_perception.html.