Not necessarily. There can be a desire for instantaneous change which does not entail time. But that’s beside the point, which is that personified thought, “I”, the thinker, is not “nothing” - It is what we are. We can face this or escape it by thinking about what is not what we are; what is what we should be.
As you wish. Let’s leave it there. But remember at least, since you are on this forum that …”you don’t exist”. At least then you will have ‘understood’ what Krishnamurti’s teaching was trying to get across. (Obviously not generally very successfully.)
I should remember something that isn’t true?
If you know you are nothing, why do you have anything to say?
Very interesting you raised this question, as I had similar question while I would listen to K and I didn’t understand all this until I realised how my brain functions and going to the depth of it.
Well it’s very overwhelming to me as I get deeper and deeper into understanding my mind how it works, our mind is brought up and cultivated in lots of experiences, now these experiences of ours brings about certain memory and our mind although has unlimited possibilities it is restricted due to our mind’s limited memory and experience.
Secondly as I was talking the mind has been extremely corrupted due to these experiences, and our limited understanding, due to this our mind does not see or view the world to its fullest possibilities and stay in its blissful state to compare with a kid who is 1-2 years old would see right, he’d laugh and enjoy anything for no reason. Why do you think so?
So how do we come to this state of blissful and get rid of these minds psychological suffering and mind not being in our control but working for itself to fulfill its needs and desires. Well to answer this one has to observe his thoughts, understand the pattern do not judge your thoughts as right wrong but just observe the Patten that how mind is clogged with lots of dirt and as you free this mind of this dirt which will come as you stay more aware of your mind, your thoughts and your actions, more understanding shall develop.
Now one may ask what is one gonna achieve by all this observation and understanding mind.
Well it’s a state of blissful that one gets as one realises that due to mind being in compulsion state all this while they never really felt what happiness is but it was thier illusion in a way of happiness as the mind was finding happiness in activities like smoking, drinking, pleasure and so on but it’s only mind thinking in this way because of which it has a compulsion to do these activities again and again once you understand this ONE CAN BE FREE OF MIND AND IT’S DRAMA.
1 Like
We can all get things wrong from time to time. However, isn’t there always a truth around us which we are sometimes in contact with and sometimes not? For example, imagine my friend is feeling upset. I may not notice this or I might pick up on it by closely observing signals she is giving out. Obviously, if I’m lost in my own world I won’t probably notice how my friend is feeling. A “ringing true” might de a reliable detector on some occasions.
Innocence. As the child grows he forms a psychological shell or wall to block out what has hurt, what has scared him. He becomes less vulnerable. He forms an image of himself. His brain fills with memories of experiences, knowledge, imagination, the past. There is fear and worry and he looks for ways to minimize it. Entertainment. Attachment. Beliefs. Drugs….To return to innocence all this has to be seen through deeply. The ego fears being vulnerable. It would stay in this darkness rather than be vulnerable. But understanding what thought with time has falsely created in the psyche and how it perpetuates itself can bring light through the ‘cloud’?
Emotional intelligence seems to be key here. Emotional intelligence is a matter of self awareness, self-knowledge, empathy, and sensitivity.
When it comes to our inward psychology, our resistances, our capacity to perceive the truth or falseness of certain statements, it seems that the degree of our emotional intelligence is what is relevant.
Yes, but we don’t call it “truth” when we don’t like it or don’t find it interesting, and we resist it by denying or distorting it. We’re too biased and prejudiced to respond to truth in a consistent way (like a familiar sound) because we’re more committed to our own desire/fear/hope/dread/like/dislike than truth.
imagine my friend is feeling upset. I may not notice this or I might pick up on it by closely observing signals she is giving out. Obviously, if I’m lost in my own world I won’t probably notice how my friend is feeling. A “ringing true” might de a reliable detector on some occasions.
This is not an example of the “ring of truth”. This is an example of undivided, undistracted attention.
Invariably, one speaks of hearing the ring of truth in response to something something written or spoken.
Mostly older people use the phrase, so it might be archaic…or young people are using it in a different way.
"This is not an example of the “ring of truth”. This is an example of undivided, undistracted attention.
[/quote] - Inquiry
My point, which probably wasn’t made very clearly, is that “the ring of truth” is perhaps based on the same kind of sensitivity that is used on picking up if a friend is feeling upset. Are we sensitive to the truth when we see or hear it, in a way which is not purely intellectual?
Can there be a false ring of truth based on our conditioning? Yes, of course. Confirmation bias is a term that has become popular that probably explains how our biases are confirmed by selective seeing or hearing. But is there in the ring of truth, something which cuts through our biases? Why do K’s teachings ring true to some of us here?
1 Like
The psychologically conditioned brain wants the truth when it serves its purpose, and doesn’t want the truth when it doesn’t serve its purpose. Since its primary purpose is to survive, continue, it is always opposed to the whole truth, and favors the partial the truth when it serves its expedient purpose.
But is there in the ring of truth, something which cuts through our biases? Why do K’s teachings ring true to some of us here?
We like to think K’s teaching is the truth, but we really don’t know. All we can do is go with our feelings until/unless we can be sure we’re going astray.
I agree, but are there “truth vibrations” which cut through all the layers of conditioning and denial? Psychological conditioning is surely only in the field of the intellect.
I think Inquiry would respond by saying that psychological conditioning doesn’t just operate at the level of the intellect but at the level of feelings and emotions too, so every ‘ring of truth’ must prove false (according to this view).
And yet Inquiry has picked up this language (‘psychological conditioning’) from Krishnamurti, so presumably he must have felt at one point that it had the ‘ring of truth’!
So there seems to be a paradox here, or something we don’t see or cannot explain clearly: how does a brain that is thoroughly conditioned by thought and memory right the way through - both at the conscious as well as unconscious levels, both intellectually as well as emotionally - have the psychological space to recognise or perceive the truth of what someone else (e.g. K) is saying?
Krishnamurti sometimes talked about planting a ‘seed of truth’ in the minds or brains of those who truly listened to him (i.e. whose minds listened to what he had to say from a space of attention). Is this a clue?
And yet clearly we do not need to be Buddhas - i.e. be in a state of total attention - to perceive the truth of something simple, such as the fact that one is ignorant or lazy or confused, or that the world of society is in disorder.
So is it a matter of how far this ‘seed of truth’ has penetrated in the mind? Is it just a superficial recognition of general facts, or a deeper, more comprehensive illumination of the way things are?
I suppose that the strong argument goes : if it is possible to feel that some idea rings true, independant of whether the idea is or isn’t true - then it is not possible to determine whether something is or is not true merely on the strength of our opinions/beliefs/feelings.
Of course, how deeply one is affected by an idea is significant.
I don’t understand this sentence. You have a habit, if I might point out Douglas, of over complicating your expressions! Expressed slightly differently you are simply saying (as far as I can make it out):
Even if an idea sounds true, it cannot be verified on the strength of one’s feelings alone.
I think though @Sean is talking about something beyond mere ideas when he uses the expression ‘ring of truth’. He is talking really about a kind of perception with the mind, with awareness, that captures - for a moment - the truth of a statement.
This momentary perception of truth depends (as I understand it) on the degree to which one’s mind - in the very moment of listening - is attentive, sensitive, self-aware, emotionally intelligent.
It depends on how much one is in contact - in that moment of listening - with one’s life experience, one’s awareness of inner and outer facts. And even then, it is only a glimmer, a sliver of (what may turn out to be) truth - the whole truth of which can only be verified by giving complete attention with one’s whole life and energy (if one can do this).
This is how I understand it.
James’ reply: I don’t understand this sentence. You have a habit, if I might point out Douglas, of over complicating your expressions! Expressed slightly differently you are simply saying (as far as I can make it out):
Yes, I had to read it more than once, but I’m pretty sure he meant to say “regardless” instead of “independant”.
A simpler way to say it would be: It is possible to feel that some idea rings true when in fact, it is not true, so a feeling can’t always be trusted.
1 Like
So the question then Aries how does one know, if what is true and what is not, it’s by observing one’s mind and its Pattens one realises there there is nothing like right and wrong for one’s mind. And hence you become free of this game.
Well you getting there but you can’t get above it, due to the fact that your mind is unable to accept something that is beyond its understanding and depth and to get to this depth one has to give in all that the mind has thought and has been cultivated.
Which is totally not easy, is is nothing but questioning the normalcy that one thinks is normal but once we move beyond this normalcy we realise that it is upto to us what we create and what was one’s normal is no more seem to be normal.
Lovely. Do you know how many people who drop in and post here a few times - before disappearing - believe they have achieved something?
Shall I give in to your guru or mine?
I think I will create a website for people who aren’t claiming to have achieved something “above”. But thank you for your advice.
So one says that guru is very important and when I watch any person or guru mind thinks it can be right but how to bring that realisation from within is why I prefer to look inward and see it yourself.
Please continue to look inward and share your insights with us 