No the “parallel reality” is ‘what is’! The wanting it to be different moves you away. The wanting it to be different is the conditioned mind (brain). It’s the ‘me’ looking for a different (better) experience.
Pondering this, it may be key in all this is to discover as K did, that…‘I am the world-the world is me’… then the conditioned brain with its illusory ‘me’ is put into perspective as being a “part” of the world…and totally conditioned?
I’m not sure what you mean here. Surely first comes the observation, then the reaction.
Krishnamurti: If you see “what is” then you see the universe, and denying “what is” is the origin of conflict. The beauty of the universe is in the "what is; and to live with “what is” without effort is virtue. - The Urgency of Change
I understand that the reaction to “what is” is a movement away, an escape if you like. Perhaps we are talking about the same thing.
More teaching from Paul Dimmock who doesn’t understand or care what thinking together is.
Consider the whole conversation from which you have extracted your quote. The questioner says that the ‘what is’ is hideous. He is looking at his own life with its mix of ideals and aspirations. For him the ‘what is’ includes confusion, violence and every form of human aberration. And then K remarks that to live with this ‘what is’ without conflict is what frees us from it. So it is important to understand that we are using the phrase ‘what is’ to indicate the psychological state of the mind, which may be anger, fear, confusion or something else. We are saying that the reaction itself is the ‘what is.’
As Fraggle says:
Before we consider what’s next, let’s first be sure that there has been actual change, not just a hypothetical change.
The problem with the phrase, “what-is”, is that Krishnamurti used it in reference to the brain’s conditioned response, and he may have used it to refer to actuality. So it was never clear to me if “what-is” was the brain’s version of actuality or actuality, so I don’t use the phrase without making it clear.
I think it was Bohm who got Krishnamurti to start using “actuality” instead of “what is”.
What can be confusing about “what-is” is that conditioned response, the brain’s reaction to actuality, is what-is, just as actuality is what-is. So if one must use “what-is”, make it clear as to whether you’re refering to the brain’s conditioning or to the actuality the conditioned brain is reacting to.
Any immediate reaction of the conditioned brain to the actuality becomes the actuality itself, hence “what is”.
At that moment, if there is attention, awareness can arise and thus a possible change/transformation of the conditioned brain. If there is no attention, thought takes over and the actuality changes again becoming a mere projection of the conditioned brain.
Does this make sense?
Yes.
Now, how can we be sure that a real change has taken place and not just a hypothetical change?
Right. Thanks for clearing this up. This is potentially very confusing.
Please see Inquiry’s very clear explanation where he addresses this point.
Yes, it was a very clear explanation. Another way to look at it is to extend the phrase ‘what is’ into ‘what is happening now’ or ‘what is the state of the brain.’ (Possibly, the word ‘reality’ covers this aspect too, from what one remembers of the conversations with Dr Bohm.) We can observe these daily happenings, realities or reactions as they arise, as we notice what is happening to us in the course of our relationships with others and with the wider world. And it is possible to be aware of these things - these moments of anger, surprise, fear, delight - without thought doing anything else about them. This inaction on the part of thought brings about a significant change in our relationship with the world.
So this is our question, our ‘what is.’ And you are right to place emphasis here on the word ‘we’ because the transformation takes place in relationship.
Ok…
So life challenges me in any of its many ways, a challenge to which I react (whatever that reaction is), but because I am attentive an awareness arises that has the power to transform.
Now, is that transformation
Therefore let’s consider all those things to which we pay attention in our daily life and the degree to which this attention is governed by a sense of reward or punishment. In other words, how we are inclined to look at things only when there is a strong element of self-interest in it. So it may be that the reaction itself is the true moment of transformation, not anything else we may do or try not to do in its wake. After all, the reaction is the self out in the open: “I am angry; here I am.” Everything that comes after this moment is about the observer performing damage limitation.
It is not just about anger. Exactly the same kind of crisis may be expressed as, “I love you; here I am.”
This is interesting, as it would undoubtedly open the door to observe two types of attention…
An attention based on the conditioned observation of the cause prior to the reaction, as “reward” (I love you) or “punishment” (you are a stupid moron).
An attention that has nothing to do with the previous one, that would arise at the same instant in which the reaction arises, with its own movement and that would open the door to an actual transformation.
Now, it seems obvious that the first would not transform anything since the only thing it would do would be to change the wrapping, leaving the content the same, and simply creating the illusion that it has changed. While the second, if it were to occur, would produce an actual change. But what exactly would change?
It certainly could be as you say… Someone comes to me and says or does something that makes me angry. At that point there is only the reaction, that anger, which may itself have the capacity for transformation.
Now, does that reaction require something additional to produce that transformation (such as attention and insight/thought-free-awareness as I pointed out earlier), or does the reaction itself have the capacity to transform without the need for something additional?
Yes, of course.
We are starting to see that there is a difference between the nature of the self and the nature of the observer, even though they co-exist and overlap in our daily lives. Putting it very simply, the self is naturally selfish and the observer is determined to keep this natural selfishness under wraps. The self is the ‘what is’ and the observer is the ‘what should be.’ It is the observer who always thinks in terms of something additional to resolve the problems of the difficult self: insight, awareness, attention, intelligence, love, compassion. These are all ideals. The observer wants to impose these ideals upon its own view of reality. But to see that these are all ideals is also insight, awareness, attention, intelligence, love and compassion. Then love as the ideal and love as the actuality are two very different things. While the observer is present, active, involved, it will always be a case of playing around with ideals, because the observer itself is also an ideal. And the observer is incapable of seeing the truth of this. For it is a perception that only makes total sense when there is no perceiver, no observer.
Again, this is a question being put by an observer who is desperate to get at the truth. So what matters is neither the question nor its answer. What matters is the desperation, the exact nature of the impulse that says, “I must find out the truth.” The observer will only find a truth that comes as an acceptable package of idealism with its familiar wrappings. Whereas you and I now must find ourselves somewhere else which is not in the world of ideals. A change has already taken place; and it is only the observer who objects to this.
[Edited as requested. No changes made. Not sure why this was flagged as inappropriate.]
do i feel the arising ?
some words to give an idea of that question .
. irritation . force . knowledge . argument . behaviour . inner voice . look . whatch . check . strengthen ?
the arising thought , motivation , judgment and feeling and so on .
its arising . it needs time my friend
The arising can only come from memory - that’s where all those words come from - because there is no other source for the mind to draw upon. Love has no source nor origin nor history. Love is there when the mind is completely empty. Love is the empty mind. Nothing else matters; nothing else has any value; it is the only first-hand reality.
yes , it comes from memory , and it takes time , and we already know it because we remember .
If we are here to create a space were we can whatch the structure and process of thought we might slow down this thing and get to see the arising of thought .
At the Moment of its activity . to learn about it directly .
what Do you feel ?