What happens to this silent mind with all the external noise around it?
Nothing. External noise comes with awareness of actuality. But when there’s no stream of consciousness (content), thought is silent.
The silence Krishnamurti talked about is the absence of thought.
We ‘know’ we’re suffering, frightened, violent, destructive, clever, confused, divisive, searching,… to name a few things that we know about ourselves. Was all that behavior, the destructive kind, the result of humanity taking a ‘wrong turn’? We’ve moved from stones and spears to bombs and nerve gas and who knows what else we’ll come up with. A stone age mentality with nuclear weapons. To me it’s not what some describe simply as ‘human nature’. The ‘wrong turn’ theory to me seems more likely, a turn that was a possibility for the human brain, that was not available to the more hard-wired brains of the animals. But in part which had to do with the remnants of the animal brains inherited by us, the territoriality, the possessiveness. But we went wrong, because we could.
There is also the possibility of rejecting an inheritance, however, that takes a lot of guts to actually do it.
Yes, like ‘self-confidence’ but before you can ‘reject’ it you have to be aware that you have it? Or any of the contents of our consciousness? The point K was making in the video with Bohm as I heard it, was that a total perception of whatever was there: nationalism, greed, jealousy, belief etc, that a total perception of it ended its place with thought’s support in the brain.
But unless the perceiving was ‘total’, the fixed habit or reflex remained intact? An example for me would be my belief in the religious doctrine that I was born into which when perceived for what it was, faded away.
Can the structure of ‘I/me//mine’ fade away in the same way?
While I was studying the book “Man is not the Measure” I realized that “rejecting” is not the right word in this case, which seems to indicate an act while deep insight is the act that nullifies the influence of thoughts.
I agree Wim, it’s as if the perception itself brings with it the energy to bring order where there was disorder?
Something that occurred to me after reading @Inquiry’s post ‘Genesis’ was K talking about our needing to ‘die each moment’…die to the past. I have separated life and death, life being something to hold on to and death, to be avoided. Physically it seems sane but is it so psychologically? To die in the moment means to me to let go of the past and be in the present. The present is where life is ever renewing itself. It is where the ‘Presence’ is (or any word you want to use to describe the indescribable). When we are ‘present in the Presence’ we participate in the “Immensity” in a way that we don’t and can’t, when our minds are occupied with the past. So ‘dying in the moment’ seems very important…not carrying our beliefs of the past into the present moment…but dying to them in order to renew ourselves,as life does each moment?