Somewhere along the line of the evolution of the human brain an attitude spilled over from the ‘animal’ that ‘things, events, happenings etc, should not be what they are? ‘Should be’ and ‘should not be’ became part of the psyche? ‘Death’ became the opposite of ‘life’ and was to be avoided, feared, and dreaded? The brain could now vividly recall past experience and for the first time in nature, imagine a ‘future’ that didn’t exist? Will it emerge from its confusion?
That gives us the perfect opportunity to reveal blind spots, in others and ourselves.
Without some degree of continuity, i.e. the past/known, a focused inquiry into a question/theme seems unlikely. (I’m not saying a focused inquiry is the desired goal. Is it?) Without continuity, the dialogue is a kind of telephone game, Peter says something, Paul reads and responds to it, Mary reads Paul’s response and responds to it, and so on. Downstream messages are distantly related with earlier messages, and the original question is distorted or lost entirely. ?
Is this an argument for continuity and participation of the self? Was this an opportunity to see a blindspot or was there no looking, no observation? Just react, think up a response and move on. As one does in a discussion or debate when one defends one’s position. Did you even look at the question that you responded to? I doubt that you did.
It’s my attempt to call our attention to one of the possible consequences of engaging in a dialogue that has little continuity. Personally, I’ve really enjoyed this approach the few times I’ve tried it. But I don’t think it’s the ideal approach for a discussion that is to stay on topic.
For me, yes, to the degree to which I can see (glimpse) that particular blind spot.
What is there for us to do instead of explanations and theories?
1 Like
For me it is like a mystery story, what has happened to us. Living in nature with birds and animals the difference between us and them comes into sharper and sharper focus. So explanations and theories are an attempt to understand what went ‘wrong’. But they won’t end our isolation. Only awareness can do that?
1 Like
I think Utes is asking : What else can we do but rely on thought?
What else can we do but believe our own stories?
What else can we do but treat our experience as actual reality?
So I agree with Dan - Awareness is key. The stories if they are correct, may be helpful - but it is impossible to tell a true story from a false one - from inside the story.
Can a character from inside a story, be free of the story? They must understand what a story is (maybe this is also difficult) and have an undeniable need to be free of the story (and this is not their choice to make)
What is awareness - what is it a story of? It is a story of freedom.
Awareness, the story, is lofty spiritual truth, awakening. Awareness, the actuality, is simple clear seeing. We want the former, the latter is too banal and boring. Thought provides fireworks.
1 Like
Awareness is not a story.
More story telling. When does it end?
I can relate to what you say. It seems obvious that something went wrong or/and is inexplicable. Our life is inexplicable per se and it is inexplicable why we became a threat for each other and all living things, too.
We will not find a satisfactory reply for this development, though it is bothering us.
Awareness will not show what has happened, but sheds a light on the factual seperation while we measure and compare. Measurement and comparison are seen as a process of isolation and not as a means for assertiveness as usual?
1 Like
When useful tools (like measurement and comparison) become our only manner of fonctioning, this is a handicap.
Never?
Thank you 
Or: Do we have any useful tools? Or: Do we need tools?
In the beginning of this dialogue you were asking whether we feel that we are our experience. This is a good question - it asking what we actually feel we are and not how to get there or what would be the preconditions.
When useful tools in technical areas are transferred to human relationships they are not very useful I’d say.
So you throw a monkey wrench into exploration and inquiry because what you are interested in is psychological sparring. Is that accurate? You just want to spar over your K knowledge and another’s?
If we want to avoid war, they can be very useful. I depend very much on the psychological images I hold of other people to interact as efficiently as possible (Kinfonet sometimes tells me this is a mistake - though the mistake is really in holding on too tightly, not allowing the images to evolve)
One of these images is of Rick, my friend, the mad philosopher and poet. I was just asking him to come back down and explain himself.
But I agree, this is an important thing to see : what is experience? Could you say some more about it? Or just repeat the last bit of your statement, I really cannot understand what you mean.
Totally get why you’d say these things about me. I see my participation here in a somewhat different light, though I would not presume to claim my interpretation is truer. Blind spots!
What you see as throwing a monkey wrench into the inquiry I see as rocking the boat. The wrench throwing would seek to break the inquiry, grind it to a halt, which is definitely not my intention. The boat rocking seeks to energize the inquiry, get it to look in different areas, through different lenses.
What you see as sparring I see as engaging in playful and sometimes challenging interaction. Someone serves something up, I spin it and return it, they do the same, back and forth. It’s a bit like lateral versus linear thinking, and lateral thinking is not universally welcomed.
Those who take K’s teaching seriously would consider the above attitude/approach not serious, but it seems to me that those who think they are serious are not serious.
I think that anyone who takes Krishnamurti seriously would be watching oneself too intently to be talking about the teaching. If the teaching doesn’t have the effect of changing desire for success to questioning desire, the teaching is just something to talk about.
An original mind is rarely understood,…so averse are men to admitting the true in an unusual form; whilst any novelty, however fantastic, however false, is greedily swallowed…Distinction is the consequence, never the object, of a great mind.
–Washington Allston
Isn’t rocking the boat what has been done for millennia? The same old game?
Is that being said from seeing the actuality or from thinking that that is what the actuality would be? Rick, you are still content to stay in the boat and try to maximize pleasure and minimize pain rather than jump out of the boat. Just the same old game.