I don’t think Krishnamurti was immune to irritation - but my sense is that he genuinely wasn’t a victim of envy, jealousy or psychological fear. Your description of “instant action” is probably valid with regards to Krishnamurti’s occasional flashes of exasperation/irritation with the people around him, but this must remain largely conjectural (based on one’s own understanding of the human heart 
) for us.
So a completely clear understanding of the separation between thought and envy ends envy for good? Is it that “we” just don’t have this clarity?
When the thought arises ‘I wish I were you, have what you have, look like you look, etc ‘, that thought IS ‘envy’. The ‘choosing’ of those thoughts lets them occupy the mind. Awareness of them as they arise sees them for what they are, comparisons, which have no place in the mind except to cause turmoil. We don’t compare what we see in nature, that tree is better looking than that tree. But in our mind we think there can be change and the self image tortures itself with comparison to others.
Envy is simply what our minds create when we compare (psychologically speaking). I don’t think this clarity is alien to us. But it definitely requires some insight, and insight cannot be bought cheaply.
I still think that passive observation - or choiceless awareness - is the key to this.
No doubt, but can I choose to use this “key”? One might just as well say that direct perception or wholeness or selflessness is the key, though none are possible for the mind bound by its conditioning.
I would say forget about keys or doing this or that because if I’m not more interested in what I, the mind, is doing, than I am in getting results, nothing is new. I am as ambitious, greedy, and desperate as ever.
Yes - perspicacious as ever
We mostly live with the feeling that the word builds up, never live with the feeling without thought or measure.
James -
The self arises as a psychological centre through the movement of thought attaching itself to the senses, creating psychologically active images.
This is an additive and dismissive process of ‘I like this - I don’t like that’ and ‘I am this - I am not that’ - which decoded is the seeking of a constant knowing state of pleasure - an ecstatic state of controlled bliss - of ‘me’ as a separate entity against the world.
This continuous pattern of psychological thought wears out the physiological/neurological balance of the body/mind - driving it into a system of depression.
This destructive pattern is wholly reinforced by the food chain, and is practised as consensus consciousness/reality.
It is the insight into this movement and pattern of psychological images and their making, which ends the self.
The naming of psychological images as greed, envy, jealousy and so on, only entrenches the belief in their existence - whereas understanding that they all have a similar reactive pattern of psychological images driving them, ends them instantly.
Yes, work him out because he is the world teacher…The other option is the worshiping of oneself which has absolutely no value what so ever.
Understanding the movement of self requires no one else. One IS the whole of humanity.
Yes, which implies ‘I like this sensation’ and ‘I don’t like that sensation’. The feeling side of the coin.
One can be aware of these judgements as they arise; which involves also being aware of the feeling-tone or sensation they leave in the mind. This is part of sensitivity.
One cannot screen oneself off from this feeling side of the mind’s judgements without doing harm to the health of the mind as a whole, because this feeling side is also part of what allows the sense of beauty, of aesthetic appreciation - and of relationship too.
One can certainly indulge this feeling side (through being romantic, sentimental, emotionalistic or sensationalist), which is its own strategy (leading to its own harms); but I hear you actively denying the feeling side of the mind, which is merely the opposite of this (the opposite contains its opposite); and such a denial or suppression is harmful. It cuts oneself off from important aspects of oneself. - Are you not aware of the danger of that?
Nevertheless, if this is primarily an intellectual understanding - which I feel, Patricia, for the most part it likely is - then these qualities must still be active in the mind, but are merely suppressed or screened-off from one’s awareness (due to a lack of sensitivity).
Sensitivity is important, has its place - wouldn’t you say?
1 Like
Feelings/thoughts,
Whether feelings or thoughts, both are coloured and affected by conditioning. In meditation, both disappear. What is left is dispassionate indifference… to the other’s neurotic lifestyle.
It depends on what that word "understanding " means. Plus we are here because of the teachings and it’s effect on our lives.
I think ‘denial’ and ‘suppression ‘ are different. When K says “change is the denial of change” that ‘denial’ comes from the insight that our usual attempts to change ourselves is the self’s attempt as Patricia was saying , to maintain a preferred state of mind. But real change is the “denial” of all that activity. The denial is a result of seeing the inefficacy of that conditioned movement.
Here the denying is an act of intelligence, suppression, is an act by the self?
Yes. In the way you are using these two terms, there is clearly a difference. As you say, ‘denial’ (in your sense) would be an act of intelligence, of insight - while ‘suppression’ is merely a reaction of one’s conditioning (working ‘in the dark’, as it were).
Yet you see, this is an example of what we have been discussing on another thread: we take one word (in this case “denial”) and interpret it in a slightly different way from the way the other person had intended it. We create a different context for its use (as when you said that K says “change is the denial of change”), and this inevitably alters its meaning.
I’m not criticising - this is normal, natural; it is simply what goes on all the time in conversations: one can be aware of it, that’s all.
Not a big thing and I don’t mind criticism (up to a point😭) …I see Charley just suggested ‘negating’ over ‘denying’. I agree with that, the point being to take the self as actor, doer out of the equation and replace it with ‘intelligence’?
I also just posted something on another thread about the word ‘approach’ and ‘embracing’…Our language has duality built in.
2 Likes
James -
“I like this - I don’t like that’ and ‘I am this - I am not that” - is a descriptor of the movement of thought psychologically, where the measurer is dismissive of the whole of perception, instead attaching itself as a peripheral movement of what it identifies with, thus creating image centres of focus, thereby dismissing the whole of perception by choosing to only register that which brings about a secure knowledge of one’s identity as self.
Reality is collaged to make a right identity fit as an original self - different from other selves, and just as important, or more important.
These images are registered through sensual feedback loops with specific physiological and psychological behavioural reinforcement, which when remembered trigger the manifestation of these images in the body physiologically and psychologically.
Is it possible to understand the movement of these psychological images without naming each image as an attachment to self?
Yes the body’s pleasure centres will be activated, manifesting in heightened or depressed bodily states of consciousness, but as physical feedback sensations of disorder and NOT feelings.
When the self resorts to the tag of ‘feelings’ it is nothing more than a desperate attempt to make logical the virtual reality which has brought about a state of sensual disorder, leading to a depressed nervous system, as it is in constant conflict with itself.
The word ‘feeling’ is negated as it implies someone who is describing their own imaginative internal personal space of emotions - which don’t actually exist - they are thought attached to sensation, hence the grab at the descriptor ‘feeling’.
The word ’feeling’ can never describe the movement of thought psychologically which forms the centre of self through peripheral movement - so as such it is a complete red herring to ever use it in relation to thought’s psychological movement.
A sense of ‘beauty’ is again a misnomer. What is beauty? True beauty, like love, is when pure perception is functioning and thought at any level is not.
A sensitive body is one on an purely organic vegan diet - which imbues no drugs or alcohol, no stimulants, no preservatives, no additives, no sugar, and only pure water - which is highly attentive to a strict diet of right technical thinking, and looks to no one as an authority to understand the destructive movement of self, within and without. A body/mind connection which stands alone.
Awareness is being at one with pure perception. Technical thought must be in place for this to manifest, and the movement of self correspondingly understood and ended.
Feelings, as emotions, are an attempt at hierarchising psychological thought as self.
Of normalising the fallout of psychological disorder as ‘me - my choice, my freedom to think and feel what I like’. In democracy it has mutated into ‘a right’.
You make it sound like apathy or stupidity for someone to wonder “what K meant when he said this or that”. Were you never uncertain about what he meant by what he said? Are you sure you “get it” now?
1 Like
Get what? The truth is there - the door is open.
The truth can only be seen by standing alone and finding out. And as K himself said: One cannot help another psychologically.