Pam Seeback wrote:The Causality causes the body as it causes everything of which Man is aware.
It also causes cats, but I doubt you'd reason a possible end to your being (or unknown)when one of those comes to dissolution, hence my presumption that you've necessarily implied the body as a dependent causal factor for your being. (I'm intentionally using the word being here over 'consciousness'.)
Furthermore, there is no body. This is not a metaphor, an analogy, a reference to the lack of self-existent things, or to impermanence.
I'm not sure how to elucidate the truth of this statement enough for you to realize its literal accuracy, if you haven't already, but neither does the world exist. It's a truth which one realizes more and more with the lessening of conditioned familiarity, preconceived notions, or karmic residue of attachments which usually arise with the experiences of concept, thought, memory, sensation, identity, the appearance of knowledge, etc.
Without the stringing together ("weaving") of sequential observations/experiences, these forms are not distinguished as existing, and it is no longer reasonable to come to such conclusions. More than that, the non-existence of these things is literally noticeable through insight meditation.
There is literally nothing to see but emptiness/void. Causality is a provisional term, it's relevance ought to be only in the consideration of one's own wisdom-progression. In regards to the world of illusion/mirage, it is also only illusion/mirage.
"The man who is without blind faith, who knows
the Uncreate, who has severed all links, destroyed
, and thrown out all desires
he, truly, is the most excellent of men."
Pam Seeback wrote:
The idea of the desire flame of life as being one of love/beauty and reasoning, heart and mind as one, what say you?
While Krishnamurti displays plenty of wisdom and insight in some matters, he comes off as somewhat feminine. My understanding is that the masculine does not experience love as the word is defined. To describe this difference you might look at the different ways in which a woman feels about a child compared to a man. For example a strong contrast to that femininity would be poison for the heart.
Another example would be this contrast: when a girl is asked to recall an event, she will describe how she felt during it and speak about all those feelings as existent, whereas a guy will usually dis-identify from any feelings that might have arisen, and even deny they existed at all.
'Love', whenever it is spoken of as anything other than in action, is in my view, a feminine word, and it is inauthentic. Like you, many 'wisdom'-speakers try and change its meaning and connotations, the same way one might do with the word God, it has no meaning so one can pretend it means whatever they like.
Logic elucidating this point, is that any true 'act of love' would necessarily be one of sharing wisdom and support toward that goal, the masculine ought not be interested in loving "affection", as Krishnamurti describes, tenderness perhaps as expedient means. Just look at the contrast between that and some of the Buddha's teachings which I'll quote below, or someone like Diogenes. I can understand 'love' as a compassionate act, not as any feeling or experience. (Aside from a delusional one of course.)
Many of the qualities Krishnamurti describes are very often the things which would prevent wisdom growth and allow the sort of sloppiness, worldliness and laziness that don't bring about diligence, solitude, and deep penetration of the truth.
Though I expect you knew of this apparent contradiction, or at least how these words might be received, (when using words like love, beauty, desire, etc) hence why further explanation would have been useful and the need of it should have been more easily predictable.
"Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from
the dear is painful. There are no bonds for those
who have nothing beloved or unloved."
"From affection springs grief, from affection
springs fear. From him who is wholly free from
affection there is no grief, whence then fear?"
Would children be exempt for convenience?
"As a great flood carries away a sleeping village,
so death seizes and carries away the man with a
clinging mind, doting on his children and cattle."
"He who, having abandoned sensual pleasures, has
renounced the household life and become a
homeless one; has destroyed both sensual desire
and continued existence – him do I call a holy man."
As for the quote itself and your own words on it, there's little reasoning to illuminate much deeper wisdom in it if it exists.
It's true that without the flame life itself is lost, but it ought to be lost. It's true desire burns away the pettiness of its object, but usually because of the blinding nature of it, one who is allured and acting out of immediacy does not find fault or boundary. There ought to be no interest in beauty. It's true the flame of desire for thought can lead to plenty of reasoning/analysis and eventually wisdom. Desire may eventually turn into the desire to end suffering. Other than that I fail to relate to the quote or your description, along with some other things you've referenced like mystical love.