Unless the brain frees itself or is freed from the ‘thrall’ of thought, it will have just lived and died as a continuation of the old.
Yes, certainly so. But when the ‘brain’ is free I don’think you have old as opposed to new or whatever. It will be something completely different.
Is it the thrall of thought that believes this?
It was said that when thought ceases to escape from ‘what is’ , that is the end of ‘what is’…is it that psychological thought/time created the concepts of ‘what was’ and ‘what will be’ and when its functioning there ceases, so does the concept of ‘what is’?
I would think that to have “understanding of what fear and conditioning is”, is to see with perfect clarity what fear, desire, and conditioning actually are, and thereby be done with them. Maybe this is what K meant my “negation”.
If so, negation means good riddance to unexamined rubbish, which, until it is exposed as such, has a disabling effect on thought, which empowers belief, superstition, etc.
Dan,
Never heard about the end of ‘what is’. Krishnamurti said that eventually ‘what is’ is the most sacred, maybe the idea is the same after all. When we don’t even see ‘what is’ without distortion, there is no point imagining a life without ‘what is’!!
Complacency has a certain style attractive to some who like to stand out, but dangerously confusing.
.
Has anybody learned from krishnamurti how to think? Not what thought is. He says thinking has to start from fact not from conclusion or belief .
“What should be” is not actual or factual.
So thinking has to start from fact without the interference of “what should be” or any emotion from thought . That is difficult to do.
Do we really understand thinking from what we think, or is it a confusion?
1 Like
In general, we face different kinds of situations over a course in a random manner. I feel the present is very complicated to perceive as it is. Most of the time, I deceived myself in the ‘NOW’. This personal level deception is happening due to a lack of ability to think factually on what I believed that I have perceived.
Is this motive to perceive the present, is creating the barrier between me and present? Why this division between observer and observed? What does it take to see the fact as it is, in a unified sense without any separation?
In another thread, you have said that art means putting things in a right place. What is that art, which put things in right place? Where does such energy come from? Is it a method or something else?
Share something which you know. 
Hi Huguette,
Why to abandon explanations happening inside mind? I feel that there is a possibility that some explanations could be coming from facts we have perceived which holds in reality, along with beliefs, hopes and others. How you realize the nature of explanation happening inside?
Why do you want to hold on to beliefs, explanations, narratives? Even if you recognise that something is familiar, or ressembles what you think is true, whats the point in holding on?
If one of your thoughts has some similarity to “reality”, how will you know?
Thoughts sometimes can be useful, in those rare cases, be thankful, but why hold on? Reality has moved on.
Mac,
I felt that abandoning the inner explanation implies control. After sometime, the controlled part of my mind will take revenge on me, with the same explanation in an intensified way.
I do not know, whether the inner explanation is holding reality or not until I validated. Until then, it could be reality, belief, or something else.
Being thankful to oneself is a sort of kindness happening inside, which I feel is very important aspect.
1 Like
Correct @sivaram - the abandoning must not be an effort that you put into action because Huguette (or anyone) told you to. That is conflict as you rightly say. That is the usual desire for progress and security of the self in action
Everything is conditioned/arises thanks to everything else - we can be thankful for the opportunity to live as humans on this planet
1 Like
Attachment,
Explanations, rationalizations, excuses, justifications are all representative of thought, of how thought operates, and constitute how the self maintains control within the confines of the “self” - my thoughts, my beliefs, my theories, me, me, me.
So, holding onto any explanations, rationalizations, etc. are all efforts by the self to maintain control, because they are all efforts to maintain attachment. It is only the negation of explanations, rationalizations, etc. (which are examples of control) which are to be negated - by seeing them for what they are and dropping them, putting them aside - that is negation. (Choice is also involved in this, as another method of control.) Otherwise, anything else, such as holding onto one’s thoughts (no matter how sophisticated and elaborate they are) go completely against everything K talked about.
Understanding this is fundamental, because unless one drops (puts aside) beliefs, theories, justifications, explanations, etc. there is no freedom. To repeat, K said and one has found this to be true, freedom is always at the beginning. Of course, there are always those who aren’t interested in freedom, so they try and find explanations, rationalizations, etc. so as to keep their ego, self, “i”, etc. intact - and all they end up with is the fact that they add more and more knowledge, becoming even more clever. They worship knowledge in every form. These are the kinds of people who haven’t learnt a thing.
1 Like
When you say who does that implies duality that there is an entity that is different than the doing. The doer is the doing, there is no doer only the doing. The same with observation , there is only observation , there is no observer doing the observation. When you see that your room is a mess you don’t ask who is the one who sees the mess, you just bring order to the room. You may ask what causes my room to be messed up , the answer may be laziness or indifference or something else.
1 Like
Hello Sivaram,
You said in post #90 that most of the time, you deceive yourself […] due to a lack of ability to think factually on what you believe that you have perceived. If that is so - not only for you but for all of us - why do we give such importance to our explanations? Why are we so attached to our self-deceitful explanations?
Can anyone think his way out of fear, envy, anger, etc.? Isn’t that what all our explanations are aiming for? Do we actually face the fact of our fear and anger? Can anyone, through reason, thought, knowledge and belief, end fear and anger, or bring about love, harmony, peace or joy? Does Man acquiesce to a joyless life of suffering without complaining, or does he rebel and constantly seek a remedy for his suffering? Isn’t that what Man’s explanations, seeking, resentments, complaints, anlyses, certitudes and pretenses are trying to accomplish? Do these mental movements “inside the mind” bring joy, peace, serenity, equanimity, and so on? Do the mental efforts have any effect on ending conflict, discord, greed, corruption, fear, anger, and so on?
As I see it, explanations don’t change the inner or outer reality one bit.
What do you mean by facts we perceive which “hold in reality” and what effect do beliefs, hopes, etc. actually HAVE on these facts?
I do not know why you felt like that, I simply asked about the aspects related to abandonment happening to ourselves.
And yet two men, Krishnamurti and Bohm, spent their entire lives searching for how things really are and explained their findings to us.
Can we really argue that that changed nothing or do we have no knowledge of the change and in fact it does not matter?
Wim,
As I see it, we can explain to someone how to cook, how to mix colours and use paints, how internal combustion works, how to measure distances, how to get from A to B, and so on. These are fields of activity where steps and techniques can be taught by a teacher, memorized by a student, and desired results obtained. But even in these fields, direct observation and understanding affect the quality of the results. Even these activities can be mechanically performed, or there can be an art, a passion and love in carrying them out. No?
But what can’t be “explained” is how to end suffering, how to find inner peace, etc., such that the explanations can be put into practice and the desired results obtained. “How” to live, “how” to act in relationship can only be learned by observing/understanding first-hand the mental processes which cause suffering, which prevent inner peace, our desires, our fears, and so on — not from explanations. And then, it is the very first-hand observation which acts on confusion, which transforms consciousness - not putting explanations into practice - isn’t it.
As I see it, Krishnamurti did not give “how-to” explanations. Don’t we often talk about the distinction between pointing to something and giving explanations?
Can anyone explain to another how to love, how to experience beauty, how to care, how to feel passion, compassion, peace? Are there steps to be followed — first step, second step, third step, etc.?
As I see it, what K understood by observing it in himself about the workings of the mind, he pointed out to others, and what he pointed to cannot be seen by the listener without the listener’s own direct observation. What K points out cannot be taken as a recipe to follow in order to obtain results, which can only lead to pretense, frustration, depression, so that the whole circus is perpetuated.
So K to me doesn’t “explain”. He points to the listener’s own confusion and sorrow which, to me, are the confusion and sorrow which K actually experiences. K is not pointing to something he has no first-hand understanding of. It is BECAUSE it IS his own first-hand observation that what he says rings true, isn’t it? He points to the psychological processes of thought which cause inner division, contradiction, conflict, suffering. And sometimes it is seen that those divisive processes operate even in K ---- which he warned us about. Anyway, that’s how I see it. One can’t just BELIEVE anyone in these matters — not K, not oneself, not anyone.
2 Likes