If the self is the one who lives in psychological time, then is the self what “causes pretty much everything in the human field: problems, solutions, good, bad, kindness, hatred, love, war”?
As I see it , psychological time or the self is responsible for the problems in relationship, and love, goodness and kindness do not come from that field. I suspect you see it that way too?
As you said, it feels like “me” and “my mind” as something that is unique, but it is poor humanity’s mind, which reacts as it has been conditioned to react. Love and goodness are not conditioned, are they.
‘Fields’ (psychological, physical, ego-centered, non-ego-centered, and so on) all kind of melt into each other for me, I can’t with any confidence say: this field, that field, another field.
As I see it, we are all immersed deeply in self-hood. The thought and feeling of “being a self” saturates our lives, plays a key role in pretty much everything we think, do, are. This might be more true for some, less for others … but I doubt anyone is free of self-hood, with the possible exception of a master of a system that has freedom from self as its goal.
Conventional love and goodness and kindness and compassion are imo definitely conditioned by nurture and nature. There might be purer forms of these qualities, forms beyond convention, true love and true goodness … but I am only qualified to speak of these theoretically.
Then the healthy brain is calm and imperturbable because it is functioning on a more sublime level than the brain that is constantly disturbed and upset by its conflicted condition.
Obviously there aren’t actual fields of human endeavour (as you called them). There aren’t fields which are separated by streets or borders. I’m also not crazy about the word. We might perhaps call them aspects or another word that is more appropriate.
Looking at the state of the world — the chaos, the violence, the greed, the corruption, the suffering, the disintegration, and so on — we see that human action or human relationship is not guided by a quality of intelligence but by selfishness, self-interest. So we were asking, IS there such a thing as intelligence which can guide us, and what is it. That’s a burning question, isn’t it?
Whatever one might surmise about the source or ground of all Creation, Man did not create himself nor give himself life. Nor did the brain create itself, life or the whole of Creation.
What I see is that every living being wants to live. Every living being wants security — the snail, the mosquito, the elephant, the tiger, the body’s cells, the flower, the tree, and so on. That is their God-given nature, if I may use that term.
The human being too wants security. This wanting is not an idea that is engendered by thought ---- that “I should have, I deserve, I must have” security. This wanting is part of life itself. Nature dictates that the living want to live. That’s part of life — and life is not thought’s creation or invention.
But in spite of all living things wanting security, wanting to stay alive, as their nature dictates ---- there IS NO security for any living thing.
You might see this as my opinion. To me, it is a fact.
What do the other living things do when facing death? They fight to stay alive where life demands it. That is their nature too. What they don’t do is spend or waste their life trying to go against or change their nature to get what they can’t have - like security, power, admiration, recognition, the best, the most, and so on. Their brains — or whatever mechanisms other life forms have for living in their allotted circumstances — don’t have the capabilities which cause humans to futilely fight against their given nature and so waste their life. Those capabilities which are particular to the human brain cause man to be disturbed, upset and conflicted. Maybe it doesn’t have to be that way. I don’t know.
It’s definitely a Big Question for me! And, I’d reckon, you. Though I doubt it is for most people.
Whether humans are capable of thinking feeling acting intelligently is, of course, a hugely important question for the well-being of the planet and its inhabitants. One doesn’t have to look very far to see examples of non-intelligence at work, right? A quick look in the mirror will do it!
I don’t see that it answers the question at all. One doesn’t need K to tell us that one can’t trust anything or anyone, including oneself. We are surrounded by a cacophony of all kinds of fantastic and paranoid beliefs, explanations and theories to explain the general disintegration and chaos.
K didn’t just say that there is no authority or expert to rely on in these matters. If he had just said that, would so many have listened to his words? He also said, among other things, that one must be a light unto oneself. That is vastly different from just saying, “you can’t trust anything.” Isn’t it?
I wonder if it would be more in keeping with the central thrust of his teaching to put it more like, “you can’t trust anything you think once you have thought it”?
To say “you can’t trust anything” as a blanket statement would be to deny the possibility of passive awareness, - something which to Krishnamurti’s mind at least, the human being is entirely capable of, if it only so desired.
Of course, for those of us struggling to understand what he meant by awareness, attention, etc as an actual activity , “you can’t trust anything period”, is entirely appropriate.
So if the answer to your question, “Is there such a thing as intelligence which can guide us?” is that one must be a light unto oneself, the implication is that no guidance is needed when intelligence awakens because there is no one there to be guided…there is only intelligence.
To me, to be a light to oneself means shining the light of awareness on what is. I don’t see the contradiction between not conforming to authority and being the light to one’s own understanding. It is observed that thought does not have the ability to shed light in these matters, that the formulations and efforts of thought bring no clarity or understanding. Whatever the answer is, it cannot be found by thought. Whatever intelligence IS, it is not conformity to thought. The efforts of thought to be intelligent only adds to the confusion. Whatever intelligence is, if it perpetuates conflict, can it be intelligence?
No experts, no techniques, no thought can help us in these matters.
Added:
I also don’t see that being a light to oneself implies that “no guidance is needed when intelligence awakens because there is no one there to be guided…there is only intelligence”.
Intelligence can only be observed through its actions, not directly as a thing in itself in the way that fear, for example, can be observed. The action of intelligence can be observed in harmonious relationship and in the order of the universe. So it is not personal. The self cannot take credit for “my” intelligence or “your” intelligence. But the self is not the whole person. Intelligence can awaken in the person. The person does not end.
Please feel free to ignore this if it’s not helpful:
I have the feeling that ‘intelligence’ is sometimes being depicted here in almost mystical terms. Similar to how ‘brahman’ is depicted in Advaita. Am I wrong? If not, is this a useful approach?
Well, someone has begun discussing what it means to be a light to oneself… and provides a definition, well-thought out too !!!
K said:
“One has never asked: “Can I be a light to myself - not the light of someone else, the light of Jesus or the Buddha?” Can one be a light to oneself? Which means, that there is no shadow, for to be a light to oneself, means it is never put out by any artificial means, by circumstances, by sorrow, by accident. Can one be that to oneself? One can be that to oneself, only when one’s mind has no challenge, because it is so fully awake.
“But, most of us need challenges, because most of us are asleep - asleep, because we have been put to sleep by all the philosophers, by all the saints, by all the gods and priests and politicians. One has been put to sleep and one does not know that one is asleep; one thinks that is normal. A man, who wants to be a light to himself, has to be free of all this. One can be a light to oneself, only when there is no self. Then, that light is the eternal, everlasting, immeasurable light.” K, Brockwood Park, 2nd Public Q&A Meeting, 30 Aug. 1979
Is “the person” the biological human relieved of its confusing, conflicting, fragmented condition? If so, does this mean the person is guided, by intelligence, or enlightened so that the person is a light unto itself?
If the former, doesn’t the person have a relationship with intelligence that involves trust? If the latter, the person is no longer who or what it was, but the embodiment of intelligence.
When one places thought in its right place, what place is that? In other words, where is that thought stored? The layers of consciousness are like the floors of a house. When all the rooms are empty, and the wind blows, it appears that there is fresh air all throughout the house. The problem remains that there is still a house there, and in some people many floors to that house (as many layers of consciousness as there are floors), and the house has got to go as well. The brain built the house in order to store all the memories, thoughts, and layers of consciousness, the “I”… and it was so constructed through millennia of evolution. As long as the house (the infrastructure) is still there, there is no enlightenment (being a light to oneself), no true freedom. Any cunning and wilful thought that persists has got to go, as it can lead someone to believe all sorts of falsehoods.
Because what you say is an intelectual, rational approach, which may describe a fact. But to see that what you say is actual, requires an actual direct perception of the “I” idea, which requires an “I” idea free of associations, which seems to me may hapen when we observe our suffering (fear, envy, etc.) without division.
For “our suffering” to be seen for what it actually is, our suffering must see itself by being illuminated, and thereby exposed and revealed. But since there is no illumination and only darkness and sightlessness, we have nothing but thought to guide and direct us. So by “division”, what we mean is no vision at all and the predominance of thought.
