Indeed, many of us are obsessed with love and we indulge in what we think that love is. But … it isn’t. Hence the frustrations and shortcomings and not to mention the even more dramatic outcomes.
I do not know what love is and do i even want to find out? I.e. do i seek love? Even when i don’t know what it is?
Most of us have an idea of what Love is because it seems to be missing. But when we ask what it is that’s missing, we can’t say without sounding foolish.
If there’s nothing more intelligent to commune with than thought, why aren’t we worshipping reason instead of the confusion of incoherence? If there is intelligence beyond thought, why do we remain within the limits of thought?
But I digress. Is Love real or imagined? If it’s real and unimaginable, is it more reasonable to think about it, or to never give it a thought?
Maybe we shouldn’t ask ourselves what is missing? Because we haven’t a clue.
So… is it possible at all to live with and in the unknown? What is the unknown? Or is it thought creating it? Just another thought? So that we again, over and over and again are our own prisoners?
Maybe it’s similar to darkness, not a presence, rather an absence of light, knowing. Also similar to Buddhist emptiness, sunyata: the absence of inherent existence. Maybe all these terms can only be spoken of negatively, as absences.
Why not? Clearly I’m lost and desperately seeking something, so why don’t I find out what’s driving this search? Is it the search for sanity, or the search for a better belief?
Because we haven’t a clue.
Would we be seeking if we didn’t have a clue? Isn’t Krishnamurti our clue?
What is the unknown? Or is it thought creating it?
We know that much of what we think we know is not really knowledge, but presumption, so the unknown is what we’re escaping through presumption. We fear what we don’t know, but finding out how little we know, if anything, is an even more terrifying prospect than losing what we presume to have.
So that we again, over and over and again are our own prisoners?
As long as we’re prisoners, we can always escape; we’d rather be convicts than be unconvinced.
Seeing what’s going around in the world, don’t you ask:
’ Is that al there is? ’
Did/Do we really need K to ask this question?
I did it before and after meeting K!
Can the brain / mind see clearly how it has become so loaded down with the past? That it has accumulated it and gathered it all around itself for a sense of security; to be ‘something’?Out of a fear of being ‘nothing’? Yet it IS nothing, (not-a-thing). Can it face the fact of its own nothingness without any fear whatsoever? This seems for me to be THE question.
The brain, the mind and the “I”.
Why this division? To solve a problem, whatever small or futile… might there be no need to work together as one unit?
A reasonable speculation, but we really don’t know, do we…
No. Seeing what’s going on in the world and going on in this brain, isn’t it more reasonable to ask, “Why do we pretend to know what’s true instead of finding out?”
Did/Do we really need K to ask this question?
People unfamiliar with K’s teaching see what’s going on in the world and ask, “Is this all there is?” because they never have enough.
I did it before and after meeting K!
So much for K’s teaching…
If I am nothing but what I think I am, I can’t stop thinking until I’d rather be nothing.
Isn’t it that the ‘you’ that thought thinks it is, is actually only thought itself? And the brain / mind has lived with that false duality since childhood? A more or less constant level of conflict?
So much based on K’s teaching !!!
"The brain, the mind and the “I”, are just different words for one process. Thought’s function is to separate, and an open mind is neither functioning nor resisting - it’s just vulnerable.
Self-knowledge, by its nature, is constantly refreshing itself. But general knowledge must be updated, which requires the cooperation of others."
To solve a problem, whatever small or futile… might there be no need to work together as one unit?
Since they are not actually separate, the need is not for cooperation, but for awareness of why we can’t see what we’re looking at without telling ourselves what it is.
K’s teaching says this is so, but if it was obvious, the illusion wouldn’t persist. We can’t see that there is no thinker, only thought, because the conditioned brain practices a sleight of hand that perpetuates the illusion.
And the brain / mind has lived with that false duality since childhood? A more or less constant level of conflict?
Yes, and this condition persists because the brain is unaware of what it is doing for the false sense of security that conformity induces. The fear of being outside of this comfort zone keeps it within its self-imposed limits.
Maybe but there is the understanding that there is a need for radical change. So one suggestion made is to experiment. Close the eyes and see if the brain can be empty of it all. Not follow the thoughts, be aware of them, the body sensations etc but be free of it all.
Yes, but there are needs for a lot of things we aren’t taking seriously enough to do what it takes to meet those needs.
Close the eyes and see if the brain can be empty of it all.
The conditioned brain can imagine emptiness, imagine itself empty.
Not follow the thoughts, be aware of them, the body sensations etc but be free of it all.
The conditioned brain can imagine it is doing this, and unaware of the operation of imagination, it can believe it is “free of it all”.
All that is ‘’conditioned ‘ thought speaking, concluding, etc so the experiment is to not pay any attention to all that and just be nothing.
There’s no way to ascertain that you are nothing without being something, so to speak of being nothing is to assure yourself that it’s true. If you really are nothing, you wouldn’t need to keep asserting it.
2 Likes
The experiment is to steer clear of all that intellectual stuff that comes up; the conclusions, explanations, analysis, the brain’s conditioned reactions.