To change OR to understand? 
âŚWhere memory is at work in any psychological encounter, there can never be security in that relationship, even though it may bring with it enormous pleasures. So we can see insecurity at work at any time and in any situation. It is our immediate responsibility each time we meet.
This responsibility cannot be designated to the brain alone for that would be like a policeman being asked to clear away corruption within the ranks of the police force when corruption is something wholly institutional. The brainâs function is to record and recall. Beyond that it has nothing else to do. Therefore, it is necessary to find out what happens when the brain is neither recording nor recalling, and whether there is a movement that is wholly different from the stream of consciousness brought about by the operations of memory. This different movement is not taking place within the brain, so there cannot possibly be an entity that is finding out what happens. It is therefore a responsibility in relationship, which is not about the relationship between two separate entities. Such a relationship between two entities implies separation and distance, which is not relationship at all. Relationship per se is something entirely different.
1 Like
Not who said this - not do I agree or disagree - all of which is about identifiying with ideas - separating wrong and right - separating mine from yoursâŚ
But is an openess to this moment possible? Is there a responsibility towards this moment, an honest interest in what is being said, and being heard, being experienced?
Or am I just fixated on my image of the speaker? On the hierachy between me and them?
1 Like
The responsibility seems clear to me here now as the gulls circle and dive for their food in the morning fog. It is to be present in this moment with them, the trees, the small birds, the sound of the rain starting againâŚnot ârecording or recallingâ just being here with / in it all.
1 Like
Methinks youâre reading too much into my inquiry. When someone posts what appears to be a quote, but doesnât say whoâs being quoted, a reader canât help but wonder and ask.
1 Like
Sure - I get it - in fact its considered bad form not to mention the source of whatâs being said - but Iâm not singling you out - this is about humans in general (only the degree of resistance changes)
Problem solving isnât one of the brainâs functions?
it is necessary to find out what happens when the brain is neither recording nor recalling, and whether there is a movement that is wholly different from the stream of consciousness brought about by the operations of memory.
Yes, as Iâve been saying for some time now.
This different movement is not taking place within the brain, so there cannot possibly be an entity that is finding out what happens.
That may be. I donât know, which is why I donât post in bold italics, speak authoritatively, play the teacher. Why do you feel qualified to do so?
This different movement is not taking place within the brain, so there cannot possibly be an entity that is finding out what happens. It is therefore a responsibility in relationship, which is not about the relationship between two separate entities. Such a relationship between two entities implies separation and distance, which is not relationship at all. Relationship per se is something entirely different.
Therefore, as we said earlier, what matters is to watch for the presence of memory, which manifests itself in all sorts of psychological reactions, rather than to allow oneself to chase after a state of mind that is free from such reactions. The chasing after any image of perfection is what brings instability to the brain and distorts its relationship with the rest of the world; being in thrall of any image is what invites comparison, measurement and corruption in human affairs. The fact is that there is no relationship with the rest of the world. There is no hierarchy of enlightenment. For one is the world. Which means true relationship between the speaker and the listener is only possible when the listener is the speaker and the speaker is the listener, when there is no shadow or space between the two of them. It is the brain alone that seeks clarity and understanding of an area about which it can know nothing at all; and to compensate for this, the brain takes recourse to images. As these images come into play, it is possible to demolish them immediately and absolutely, not as a reaction or a trick of the brain, but just as with any action of immediate perception which is intelligence. We are all qualified to be intelligent.
1 Like
The brain can only assume that you know of which you speak or youâre grandiosely deluded, but choosing one or the other is escaping from what it does not know.
Not knowing if you know or if you believe you know what youâre saying is true, I canât help but compare what youâre saying to what Krishnamurti said. So wouldnât it make more sense (as the light to yourself you presumably are) to say what you have to say without the shadow of Kâs teaching looming overhead? If youâre free and have no further need of Krishnamurti, why are you here instead of on your own?
We are all qualified to be intelligent.
This simply means that it is possible to detect the operation of memory at the very moment it appears in consciousness. We all are blessed with bodily sensation and mental awareness. So it may be that you cannot help but compare one person with another; or it may be just that one is not aware of the presence of comparison and the dangers which come in its wake. Intelligence is supreme aloneness. To live alone is to be sensitive. Only then is relationship possible. Stepping outside of society is not about stepping or running away from it. On the contrary, it is only the man or woman who lives outside of society than can effect real change at the heart of human society. There is no teaching, by K or by anyone else. There is only immediate perception and action or immense silence and stillness. In the absence of perception, the brain habitually fills an empty space with memory; and the immediate perception of this intrusion of memory is intelligent action in relationship. Once this habit of the brain has subsided, it no longer resists or reacts to those moments of silence and stillness where it has nothing to do or to say. There is nothing too complicated about any of this. We are not using new or strange language.
Earlier on, you asked whether problem solving was a function of the brain. Obviously not. The brain records and recalls. Psychologically, there can never be an accurate and unbiased record; and therefore all psychological recall is invalid. No teaching or teacher can convey this fact. But if there is a better fact, a more direct perception of the truth, put it into bold words also. The truth will always come out loud and clear - it cannot be a half-hearted matter.
Hello Anon and all. Just to say that I find posting in bold a distraction from the content of the message.
Personally, I come here because I think itâs interesting to be part of a connected community which shares a common interest in something which is very important to all of us. If we are a community of equals exploring the teachings of Krishnamurti, the fact that one member of this community choose.to.post in bold inevitably creates a sense of separation, at least for me. The implication is that the post in bold carries more weight and truth than other posts. I understand that K pointed towards shared discovery of the new rather than a teacher imparting their truth to a passive audience.
Of course, the important thing is to focus on the content of a post, but the way in which we communicate is also important if we are actually going to communicate with each other and even perhaps discover together. How do you see this?
3 Likes
First of all, we are not a connected community of equals with a common interest. There is no such community anywhere on earth. This is an obvious truth. Therefore find out immediately why you are distracted by the manner in which this truth is presented to you. It must be because memory is at work. There is no other reason or explanation. So your own brain is interfering in the communication between us. This communication is the most important thing in our whole human existence; it is the seed of relationship, which only very rarely grows into the full flower of love. Therefore you are also being invited to respond in bold, clear, undistorted language with an unwavering regard for the truth. Until this happens there can be no community of equals.
So, are you suggesting that everyone here should write in bold-italics? Because in one way or another everyone here is trying to express what is truth to them, in exactly the same way you are. But then, when everyone finally writes their truths in bold-italicals, will you then suggest that now the truth should be written in red, and then in yellow, and then in�
On the other hand, I agree with @Sean that writing all posts in bold-italics would indicate a kind of separation from the other forum members, added to the plausible feeling in some of them that you are acting as a teacher. As if to say âthis is the truth and it is unquestionableâ. Especially when one dares to say to another forum member who is simply expressing his humble opinion about what you are doing: âTherefore, find out immediately why you are distracted by the way this truth is presented to youâ.
2 Likes
Thank You for all the words i listend to .
A stream from (y)our brain.
So there is this stream comming from outside and at the same time from another inside .
What do i hear ore read .
am i able to look out for somthing actual whitch has been described .
So we could whatch the same ,
ore do i just like them somhow .
Krishnamurti said that to live is to relate, which is quite obvious if you think of it. So it means people are always in a relationship, not just with another human being but with whatever surrounds one. To relate is not to commune with, relationship may happen when there is the memory of a previous contact or not. But if there is a recall of some sort there is a processing of it and an updating if one cares, it all depends on the quality of the experience, or, to come closer to the introduction of this thread, it depends on the quality of the âstreamsâ that are at the origin of the experience.
1 Like
Find out why you attack another for any reason at all, even over something as trivial as this matter of text formatting. Even though it may feel like you are defending someone else, it is still an aggressive action; attack and defence are two sides of the same coin. And the point is that it is not you making the aggressive action. It is memory at work. It is a conditioned response. There is no other explanation for it. And until memory is wiped away in its entirety then it is not possible to live as equals in any human community, whether on-line or in person. Our immediate awareness of this interference of memory as it arises in relationship is what wipes it away. Then we are both in another stream altogether, which, as Hermann points out, is new, continuous and without judgement. Living in this stream there is no need for opinions, humble or otherwise. Our opinions exist only in the absence of the truth, in order to fill a void in consciousness felt as the desire for security. So our opinions keep us insecure. They keep us at war. Therefore when you talk about people trying to express what is truth to them, this is really what you are talking about.
Why do you say this? Those of us here who donât presume to be free, donât presume to be enlightened, have a common interest in understanding what Krishnamurti was saying.
Therefore find out immediately why you are distracted by the manner in which this truth is presented to you.
Itâs not a distraction - itâs a blaring fact. You could tone yourself down if you think itâs a distraction.
2 Likes
It doesnât matter why it is said or who says it. The truth is not in the words but in the actuality. The words offer a tempting and idealistic picture of what is going on here, but the reality is not what those words attempt to convey. We surely donât know anything at all about connection, community or equality, if we are honest about it, yet when these words are put together in a sentence they offer us an easy way out of our unease. The words come from memory; the unease comes from somewhere else slightly further back, which is also linked to memory. However, it is possible to remain with the unease and not apply to it any words from memory. It is also possible for the habit of memory to cease altogether so that a different stream appears. It is this stream that we are being invited to explore.
If we can get past the whole bold-italics scenario then something much more exciting opens up. Once this has opened up, then it will be easy to see what is going on and there will no longer be any need to explain or justify the unusual manner of these posts.
The world is a cruel place - for we are that world.
And we have no choice but to cut you down.
Innocence was never more than an excuse for cruelty - love never more than a prize - meanwhile heroes we bow before you, fools and weirdos we shall cut you down.
If you mean it, you will âget past the whole bold-italics scenarioâ, and join us down at our level of discourse.
it is possible to remain with the unease and not apply to it any words from memory.
All words are from memoryâŚunless youâre creating new words.
It is also possible for the habit of memory to cease altogether so that a different stream appears.
Perhaps, but if the content of this âdifferent streamâ is not from memory, it will be an alien language, signifying nothing.
.
It seems to me that the brainâs problem is that it is streaming content which must be updated constantly, so as to avoid being an antique, outdated, brain. The brainâs fear of being cast aside, left behind, drives it to be abreast of the latest developments in whatever chosen world the brain decides to inhabit. Should the brain, for no apparent reason quit streaming itself, be completely still and quiet, thereâs no telling what might happen.