You write that in the outside observation, the package is looked at from outside. And you suggest that it is in the limited nature of this observation that this mess first becomes visible. I would add here that it not only becomes visible, but is brought forth in the first place. I leave out the “observer” in the summary of this, as I understand it, since in my view the notion of an “observer” is part of this mess itself, as a notion that has taken root in minds and always requires both a subsequent definition and a justification that one speaks of it.
Then you question:
What you call “hypothetical outside” is in my view the position we have through thought at all. And from that position the mess is generated as well as the notions thought operates with to handle it which has the effect of its perpetuation. So I mean, to understand the whole problem, one has to start with that point, the understanding of thought. If the question is asked from an “inside” without understanding the metamorphoses in the relationship to reality through thought, the different ideas about an “observer” will always confuse the question.
There is quite the nasty trap there too. (Traps, they’re EVERYWHERE!) Wallowing and its attendant pleasures. "Yes I’m ignorant, self-obsessed, have the emotional IQ of a 14-year old and the heart of a misanthrope, but look how smart I am to see this! Look how unique I am to have all these qualities! Or look how sad I am, how tragic (my) life is. Look – at ME, ME, ME, ME, ME!
Okay I’ll play it by ear, choose a descriptor based on the context.
I would love going tabula rasa and letting go of all authority, external and internal. That of course includes Krishnamurti. But, yes, this is a Krishnamurti forum, so expecting the forum as a whole to go that route is delusional. But … there could be ‘tabula rasa’ threads in which we agree to leave all authority at the door, like passing through a ‘self detector’ to gain entrance to the Chamber of Inquiry!
Tell me if I’m understanding you. Thought creates a concept of inside/outside in the material world ie, inside the cave, outside the cave, etc and this concept is applied to the ‘psyche’ ie inside the mind and outside the mind…if the material world can be manipulated to a degree ‘outwardly’, can’t the ‘inward’ be manipulated and changed as well?
Is that the source of the misconception or misplaced conception?
Ok, this is a reasonable request. Nullius in verba. But given that this Self business keeps creeping up on us unawares, I wonder how realistic it is?
Maybe it’s worth laying one’s cards on the table and admitting to the authorities one does have? (which you have done up to a point).
Of course, to make Krishnamurti into an authority is an aberration of its own. But we are on a forum for people interested in Krishnamurti’s teachings, so it’s meaningful to recognise that. This is simply to recognise that if we were on an Advaita forum, or on a Buddhist forum, the atmosphere would be different, and the questions would likely be different.
So, in a spirit of non-partisan goodwill, perhaps we might remind ourselves of the topic of this thread:
From this starting point then, the question I have is:
Is there a question we can have in common? Is there a vital question for you that is not dictated by an ideological commitment one way or the other? Is there a concern that we have in common?
Edit: I see you have started a new tabula rasa thread, but without a common question. Maybe we can see where that leads us…
We have to be careful here because in any understanding of thought, where does this understanding take place? And I suspect that the answer to this question is found by first asking a far simpler question about thought, which is: where is thought? Not hypothetically, theoretically, abstractly, but actually now where is thought?
No, this idea about technical and psychological thinking ist strange for me. It is the outcome of the observation from an outside position. In this outside position thought is considered in relation to its effects. What is thought to be good for? What can thought? Why do we need thought? This are the questions which are answered in considering thought in relation to different things, the different kinds of effects connected with thought. One drives a car and is thankful for this invention. There is fear and one sees the fear in relation to what one thinks about what one is afraid of. From that point it is said, thought is necessary for finding the way home or to built up a home and as it is involved in creation conflict psychologically, thought works in a area it better should not. Since one sees a justification, even necessity, for thinking in the technical area, but questions this justification for the ‘psychological area’, one says without further ado that a transfer would have taken place. And now one attributes all entanglements of thought to this transference as a kind of “fall of man”.
Do you see the beauty of it? When we put a question like this, thought has already disappeared. Thought hides mainly in our answers, not in our questions.
Or get all sorts of clever and strive to transcend the fight-or-flight instinct by just placidly observing. Alas, IT’S ANOTHER TRAP! It’s quite the conundrum: Can we be free if anything we think or do, including nothing, keeps us not-free?
It comes as a shock that one assumes that there has been some ‘progress’ with ‘all this’ and then something happens. And there is ‘fear’ in all its stunning-ness! The grasping at straws begins, to escape by whatever means, even ‘staying with it’ is an attempt to escape! Then it’s understood that it all has been an attempt to make oneself more secure and it’s all ‘ashes’!
Staying with that moment there is an awareness which doesn’t judge or try to move away or “struggle”,which I think is what K was describing as “attention”.
We don’t want to be free. We wouldn’t have trapped ourselves if we did. We don’t know what freedom is. All we know is our ability to remain within the limits we choose. Then we read Krishnamurti and decide that we need to do something completely different* by turning our attention to the elaborate trap we’ve created, maintain, and modify.
)