That is: karma
(dummy text to bypass 20+ chars limitation)
What on earth do you mean by that?
That those words should only be used with that biblical meaning ?
Must the smoker be free from his smoking habit/conditioning to see what he has been doing before he knows what freedom from smoking is? 
The answer I like is Yes.
If I have never been to the zoo, I donât know what its like to go to the zoo; though I may have many beliefs and theories about going to the zoo.
In the case of freedom from x, we could argue that ignorance of x is also a kind of freedom. (but maybe not a useful argument)
The example you use, which implies a division (me and the zoo), is not valid for what we are talking about, since in what @Inquiry has said, as well as in what I ask, the experiencer and the experience are the same entity.
So my question is, must I necessarily be free (as @Inquiry says) from what caused the effect to see its cause, before I can know what freedom from the cause is? What do you think?
Yes, itâs not a useful argument, yet most believe in that kind of freedom⌠âif I donât know that my partner is cheating on me with someone else, I am free from sufferingâ.
Why is the experience of going to the zoo, and the experience of imagining going to the zoo not valid?
How is it different from the experience of freedom, and the experience of imagining what freedom is like?
This might help :
a = I imagine what x is like
b = I experience x
I say a = not knowing x, and b = knowing x.
(x = being free, going to the zoo, eating ffghc etcâŚ)
Can you ask this question differently please ? I donât understand the question.
I meant its not useful in the same way that its not useful to say that babies (or someone who has never heard of cigarettes) are free from cigarette addiction.
Krishnamurti says somewhere that you donât need to get drunk in order to know what it is to be drunk. Also âto be free from an addictionâ falls short of the idea of what simply being free means or what freedom is. And in the context of this thread it is very far from it which deals with consciousness once Krishnamurti tells us about the emptying of consciousness rather than any kind of evolution of it.
Does anyone here recall in what talk or context, K used the phrase, âbe as nothingâ?
I donât know if itâs the talk youâre referring to but he talks about âbe as nothingâ in the talk I posted an excerpt of in the âBelieve it or notâ thread.
Krishnamurti, Without self-knowledge there cannot be complete action
Public Talk 10 Ojai, California, USA - 14 August 1949
K simply asked : âMust one get drunk to know what sobriety is?â so, nothing illogical there. and of course the answer is no.
eg. Is my knowing what the experience of going to the zoo is like, dependant on my not going to the zoo? No.
I donât think anyone was implying that giving up smoking was analogous to psychological death * - but maybe I can do that now : what is the main difference between the 2?
*merely whether imagining something was synonymous to living it.
Hello, Macdougdoug!
Obviously âimaginingâ and âlivingâ are not synonyms! Quite often, though, we can hear people say after an experience: âjust as I imagined!â People simply get disappointed or frustrated or surprised or fulfilled because people imagine things in advance of the experience⌠but that isnât the point. When we speak of consciousness weâre beyond imagination and experience because itâs all conditioning one way or the other. What is important is to let intelligence work from moment to moment instead of functioning according to our conditioning.
This might be possible if the conditioned brain is in contact with intelligence, but if we take K at his word, intelligence is beyond the brain that is limited by its content, i.e., not empty, not free, to be in contact with intelligence.
Yes it did seem quite obvious.
Are we cut off from intelligence? Is intelligence in touch with the whole, or only specific parts?
Do we need to define what intelligence is? What we are? and what is separating these whotsits?
Krishnamurti and Bohm said that intelligence (like love and compassion) is beyond the brain. If we take them at their word, we canât assume that the conditioned brain (which is limited and bound by its contents) is intelligent, or is capable of communing with intelligence.
Inquiry,
Iâm sure youâre familiar with the book âThe Awakening of Intelligenceâ.When I read your comment I just opened it at random and there it is a conversation with a swamiji where Krishnamurti suggests that it is oneâs job to go through oneâs day looking, observing and acting with intelligence. What is he talking about? As Iâm sure you also know Krishnamurti has often used a word meaning different things in different contexts. Itâs true that he said that intelligence is beyond the brain but he also said that the human being cannot get in touch with intelligence but intelligence can get in touch with a human being. He speaks as well of âleaving the door openedâ. You may have a conditioned brain but you were born as a human being - which you donât exactly know what it means - but as a human being there is this responsibility of being open to this intelligence, and, yes, you must be intelligent as you look and observe from moment to moment.
Iâd like to read the quote in context. Where is it?
What are we doing?
What is motivating our discussion?
For example, why are we defending our (sometimes very confused) points of view?
Why do we turn to K, or quote him, have we turned that authority into a crutch or a weapon? As long as we are not aware of the motivation driving us, we cannot adequately pretend that we are inquiring honestly.
Before responding (on a K forum) should we not at least take a second to see what is driving us? Is this not the beginning of consciousness in its place ie. no longer the ultimate authority; no longer mine or yours but a ripple, an expression of the whole.
The evolution of consciousness is in seeing that it evolves all the time. What you see is dependant on the quality of your attention, even more than what is being attended to.
Do not struggle to hold on to what you know, it is only a point of view. That point of view does not need you. It moves naturally with circumstance if allowed to do so.