**Yes, but perhaps at some point we stop talking about ‘what we need to do’, and actually live it, right? Die to the psychological explanations, and observe together?
**It appears that part of it just occurred, ‘listening’. Now, if there’s this second depth of awareness, observing the nature of the ‘response’ that occurred? Aren’t these questions basically three different options the conditioned brain has generated to “choose” from? Isn’t this the nature of human confusion? Not knowing which psychological option we’ve stored in memory that ‘I’ should choose from? Don’t all of these responses also distract attention away from what is? Is there an ‘I’ that needs to practise being in relationship? Is there a best case scenario for ‘me’ to discover? Is it obvious that these questions come from past experience? Is it obvious that a mind occupied with past experience is not an attentive mind?
**Yes, that is the nature of the “me,” “ego,” or “self/world image,” measurement, judgment. But it’s only ‘arisen’ as an idea, and a collection of abstract thought-stories about a fictional image. There’s no requirement that humanity needs to continue giving a false significance to this limited thought imagery.
Yes, what is “required” is the ‘dying to’ or ‘emptying’ the imagery as it arises. Rather than the accumulation that thought does now. As if it all must be ‘saved’…Letting the images go as they arise allows a moving with the present, a not-knowing. Observing without the secondary reaction to what is seen?
**It seems that given the years of accumulating beliefs, the brain would still be occasionally projecting these ‘saved’ psychological translations. But the insight into the limited, and divisive, nature of the psychological knowledge would make it clear that looking to memory to respond to the present moment is not a movement of intelligence. The attention would stop going to memory, except where it’s appropriate. There would be no need for any one to ‘let go’. So the question is, In what way does this dying actually happen? Anyone who’s familiar with Krishnamurti’s talks has likely recorded the idea that, “‘I’ can’t do it.” So, does it occur in the ‘seeing of the false’? Can the movement of this psychological knowledge be observed, now? If we’re faced with some sort of challenge, will a belief created about a previous experience provide a clear understanding of the present challenge? And more importantly, are we actually observing what is, if we’re looking to abstract memory to analyze how to respond? Turning to memory is the analytical movement of the observer structure. It’s not actually looking, it’s analyzing. Isn’t that the nature of what’s often occurring in relationship?
There is a fear of not being ‘prepared’. Of not knowing ‘how’ to respond. It feels too risky to ‘see’ how one will respond…So fear has been the motive behind all the accumulation of self-knowledge, the ‘becoming’. "I must always be ready, always make a good showing, always come off well, etc. So the brain is tied to the past rather than be in the state of ‘not-knowing’ which is a state of freedom.
An awareness observing is the togetherness.
Peter, post:18, topic:447, full:true"]
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.
[/quote]
That’s very well stated Peter.
Well one must say in a very concise way you could elucidate the real thrust of the teachings. Certainly lot of inner work, reflection, meditation must have gone into arriving at that juncture. As old members of these forums, I remeber interacting more often with you as ’ Adith ’ of K Ning and your posts.
Only when one has gone beyond the words and seen the real meaning, sense and relevance of the terms one so often come across in K teaching can get a drift of what the teaching is pointing to …
Well I also would like to share an observation though it’s more about you - you are one of very few who do not keep multiple avatars, and names which can be an indication of singularity of your intent and search
Are we tracing a line in the “sand” between good and bad knowing? Between thoughts/facts that are “real” and those that have value judgement?
Does this mean that “I” am not all my knowledge, but only the bits that I think are wrong?
Who will be the guardian of the names? Tree, birch, leaves : good/real. Good, bad, mine, yours : wrong/psychological.
Not so much freedom from the known, more like freedom from value judgement?
Can I look at a tree, know that it is a “tree”, made of “wood” etc but not know that it is separate from me, good, useful etc?
**So let’s look at that thought when it arises. Is it really possible for anyone to know how to respond to a future situation? Is the thought about the future a fact? Why is a thought-projection taken as an actual danger, it’s just a projection of the imagination, isn’t it? But let’s say one has a “good reason” to be concerned. What’s the best way to be prepared? Isn’t it to pay attention and learn? To not have a mind occupied with psychological projections about something happening to a fictional self-image in a fictional future? Yes, if there’s no insight into the limited nature of thought, this psychological knowledge/beliefs we all get conditioned with, the brain will likely continue to generate these projections to try to protect a fictional self-image. But the point is to observe the nature of this psychological knowledge, to see the falseness of looking to limited past imagery for clarity. To see the danger of this divisive imagery being taken as truth. To see that a mind caught in psychological thought is not making any of us safe or secure. Right?
Hello Peter - That was an interesting piece of trivia that you went by Adith in KNing.
You’ve offered a nice phrase, but where is there not togetherness where division is seen as false? The conditioned human brain loves nice sounding words and concepts, but doesn’t that appear to simply perpetuate the “thinking I know?” We add these psychological ideas to the 'I’s collection of things “I know.” Where is the dying to the known, the awareness of the present moment, when the mind is occupied with psychological knowledge?
There has to be an understanding of ‘death’…that it is not what we imagine it to be.
**That ‘may’ be an accurate suggestion. But isn’t this death about the death of all of these theories we accumulate, about what ‘needs’ to be done in some future. What is it that’s not dying? Isn’t it all of the beliefs that ‘I’ think are true? The abstract psychological opinions humans fight and argue over? Isn’t this collection of beliefs associated with an ‘I’ the “centre,” the “observer?” Isn’t it a dying to this identity, this ego-structure, that thought has created?
No, its about the misunderstanding about what is an ‘ending’. We will ‘end’, we will die ( we already have somewhere in ‘time’) and we don’t understand how ‘natural’ that is. We don’t understand that 'life; and ‘death’ are not opposites. That fear, of ‘not-being’, underlies, haunts everything in our mind…that is why this ‘dying’ each day to what has been accumulated psychologically is so important. We can’t wait until our physical ending…let’s talk about what that ‘dying’ (emptying) process is, as we understand it.
The conundrum is thought. Now all I can say is, meditate.
**What puzzles me, to a certain extent, is the apparent limited interest in inquiry on Krishnamurti websites. K traveled around for over 50 years inviting the crowds to inquire with him, from not knowing. To ‘observe’ together in relationship. We don’t need K to do this together, as humanity, and not as imagined separate individuals. But instead of exploring together, most of the activity on K websites is either quoting or talking about what we need to do. What about K’s clear invitation to explore together as friends?
In the field of thought there is the idealist and the realist. From reality there is an urge for the future ideal, and for the realist this is an ideal, not real.
**And what that response appears to be is ‘psychological knowledge’, past ideas that block a creative response. It’s meeting ‘what is’ with knowledge from the past. Does openness exist if the response is a belief we’ve stored from past experience? What was K pointing to when suggesting to die each moment? Is it not a dying to all of the theories we have collected? To meet each moment with a silent mind? The question was about inquiring together, and ‘thought’ responds with a quote about idealist and realist?
That said, I do appreciate your willingness to respond…
I think one has to explore on one’s own before he/she can explore with others. For example, one has to be clear about what K meant by certain words and phrases to explore together because terms must be clearly defined if we are to come to terms together.
Many of the comments I read here are unclear and incomprehensible because we each have our own way of determining what K meant by certain things he said. Presumably, he was speaking from his light to our benighted condition, so naturally we can have only a vague notion of what he was talking about, but rarely do we admit this to ourselves, and instead write knowingly and confidently about (what we think) he was saying.
I think that each one of us must look honestly at how much we think we know and understand about K’s teaching, then put all of it aside to find out if we have learned anything about what it means to be human, what we really need to know, and how much of our knowledge needs to be seen for what it is.