Is there an awareness that psychological knowledge is divisive?

K: So what shall it do? I have been watching for many years
people attempting to become free from certain things. This is the
root of it, you understand? This psychological accumulation which
becomes psychological knowledge. And so it divides, and all kinds
of things happen around it and within it. And yet the mind refuses
to let go.
DB: Once importance has been given to knowledge, there is a
mechanical process that resists intelligence.
K: So what shall I do? I realize I must let go the accumulated,
psychological knowledge - which is divisive, destructive and petty

  • but I can’t. - The Ending of Time

**What is psychological knowledge? Can the nature of psychological knowledge be observed in relationship? Is all belief psychological knowledge? Is the nature of conflict, externally and internally, one belief in contradiction with another belief? Why is such importance being given to belief?

1 Like

If you challenge my beliefs, you challenge my very identity - you question the validity of who I am :crazy_face: :cry:

Probably only in relationship, which is actually no relationship at all. What is ‘forged’ in each of us through life has as its basis fear. It is a protective covering over nothing. In the child it is created through comparison with others, ideals about being strong rather than weak, smart rather than stupid, clever rather than dull, etc.etc. Why it seems so ‘difficult’ for this self-image belief (contents of consciousness) to be seen for what it is, is because it can only be approached with absolutely no judgement, condemnation, comparison at all, i.e. the qualities that created it and which make it up. Facing oneself as one is, seems the most difficult thing…

The divisiveness of the self-image is seen in the conflicts within oneself and in the conflicts with ‘others’.

1 Like

:rofl: - the sense of separation, judgement, fear and conflict being a “relationship” between the self and its own delusions. Being a reaction to the authority of the known.

The self-image kills the human to one degree or another…the more confident the self-image, the deader the human being?

Ooh!? I don’t know what to say to that. Is it a helpful image? It certainly isn’t true - How can it be? (no images are)

If someone comes across as confident - does that mean they are as we imagine them to be?
What about the confidence to stand alone? - and to see that all authority is dead? What about the confidence that allows for no fear whatsoever? That what is cannot be destroyed - including the delusion of self?
Though I suppose that I am describing a “faith in the intelligence of life” rather than “faith in me”

No. The confidence that some achieve in shoring up the ‘wall of fear’ that they are, so as little doubt as possible can find its way through the cracks (of which there always must be some) and expose the whole pathetic, shoddy affair of the ‘self’.

Hello Dan - Nice clear response. So what now? The urgency for change seems to be right in plain sight. What might facilitate a genuine seriousness in our human family to see the divisive nature of the self-image that thought has created, to allow for something creative to occur? What can we do to invite more of our family to join us in this exploration?

K: The purpose of our inquiry, into all of this, is to bring about a good society, in which we human beings can live happily, without fear, without conflict, without all of the striving, struggling, all the brutality, and all of the rest of it. That is the intention of inquiry - Saanen 1979


I see family, friends, infant children, other people, for their conditioning. Surprisingly I see it in very young children who have only been around for 2 years. They already have all kinds of demands, disorders, unease, etc. Is it my conditioned point of view, or is it theirs, or is it some natural response, is what we might not be clear about. The way we live and act is normally to play along, or offer advice, apply instruction, guidance, training etc. But it is like getting involved in a nightmare. I can not do anymore than look carefully at my own conditioning, and my own responses. Does the contemplation, and self-knowledge passively communicate, I don’t know. Mostly people, and it seems children, are in a reactionary mode.

I don’t think Peter, that there is any more that can be done.

This has to happen in ourself and if it can’t happen there , it is fantasy to think it can happen in someone else. Those who are interested will join in. there are no ‘teachers’ here.

Is it possible to have confidence without the illusion of one’s self? Isn’t confidence confiding in someone; confiding in oneself?

a feeling of self-assurance arising from one’s appreciation of one’s own abilities or qualities.

Yes the carpenter, the plumber, the scientist, the surgeon, etc but not ‘confidence’ in what I believe, what I ‘value’, what I deem important, how I judge others, how I judge myself, etc.

**What’s preventing it from happening here? Is there anything preventing the looking together as friends, aside from psychological beliefs? Is this idea that this is “the only place” this could happen really a fact? The question that was posed was what would facilitate a genuine seriousness, it wasn’t asking about teachers. It’s more of a question of, Are people serious about observational inquiry here? Looking together? Do we see clearly that we are humanity, or still stuck in the illusion of being a ‘me and other’?

Maybe. We are coming to it in our own way. It is good there is a forum here to express what we feel and see.

If it’s necessary to have confidence in one’s skill and ability to do certain things, but madness to have confidence in one’s beliefs, values, judgment, etc., the danger is not confidence but our failure to realize where it has no place.

**That seems true. But the house appears to be on fire, and responding ‘in our own way’, with half-filled buckets, doesn’t seem to be up to the task. I’m not interested in teaching whatsoever, Teaching is about ideas and concepts. I’m interested in looking together, observational inquiry. The idea that “This has to happen in ourself” is psychological knowledge. What the “I” thinks is true. This is the habitual pattern of thought, the conditioning that we’re all subjected to, to translate apparent facts into “what I believe.” And then we argue over these thought translations. Seeing what Krishnamurti was pointing to isn’t rocket science. It’s actually quite simple, as he sometimes expressed:

K: Sirs, these are all very simple facts. If you observe your own being, your own thoughts, your daily activities, if you are aware of them, you will see that this is the actual process going on. There is nothing mysterious about it. - The Meditative Mind

**The obstruction to seeing this is the psychological knowledge. Thinking that “we know.” And thinking that we’re looking, when it’s actually the observer-thought-structure ‘analyzing’ the words according to the knowledge. The looking, as K suggested, has to be choiceless. But it seems rare that we observe our own thoughts, the responses that come out of us, in relationship.

K: So there is the superficial awareness of the tree, the bird, the door, and there is the response to that, which is thought, feeling, emotion. Now when we become aware of this response, we might call it a second depth of awareness. There is the awareness of the rose, and the awareness of the response to the rose. Often we are unaware of this response to the rose. In reality it is the same awareness which sees the rose and which sees the response. It is one movement and it is wrong to speak of the outer and inner awareness. When there is a visual awareness of the tree without any psychological involvement there is no division in relationship. But when there is a psychological response to the tree, the response is a conditioned response, it is the response of past memory, past experiences, and the response is a division in relationship. This response is the birth of what we shall call the “me” in relationship and the “non-me”. This is how you place yourself in relationship to the world. This is how you create the individual and the community. The world is seen not as it is, but in its various relationships to the “me” of memory. This division is the life and the flourishing of everything we call our psychological being, and from this arises all contradiction and division. - The Urgency of Change

1 Like

To look together there has to be an insight to the underlying, deeper, shared communion, where there is no distraction with knowledge, self, or psychology. What the teachings are often referring to is an understanding of psychology, self-knowledge and observation, which can be talked about, but is not the fundamental insight, or the ground of awareness. It is not awareness in the sense of another way of looking at something, or an informed awareness, but an awareness standing on its own ground.

1 Like

What does this mean in practise? What would a best case scenario look like? Would it be that it becomes obvious that we are being conflictual/holding on to our conditioning through the mirror of our attempts at dialogue?

Regarding this: I look at the tree. The shape, the leafless branches, the peeling bark. The thing. Simultaneously with the seeing there is the knowledge of its name: River Birch. Also there is present in the observation the memory of what the tree looks like with all its leaves… Is all this ‘secondary’ to the seeing, a reaction to the seeing? Has the ‘me’ arisen yet? Or does the ‘me’ arise when there is a judgment about the tree: “I like this tree”. "What a pretty tree"etc?

When you read these words, when your eye sees them. You understand their meaning. Then when you form a judgement about what is written, is it then that the ‘me’ has arisen?