“What am I to do?” usually reflects feelings of hopelessness, despair, self-pity, lostness. And it implies the speaker wants a way out of whatever predicament triggered the statement. “Woe is me, what am I to do (to end my pain)?!!” kind of thing. Is that what you’re saying?
1 Like
No - you’re right : woe is me! is the habit of the self. But K is asking us what (if anything) we would do if we really saw what we always do. (and what habitual woeing leads to ie. more woeing via the confirmation of woe)
I think he’s pointing at the possibility that realisation/understanding is a transformation in itself.
nb. a realisation in Love/forgiveness/compassion/acceptance
Repetition is the sign of life in many ways. For instance, it starts with breathing in and out. Prior to that, the heartbeat can already be detected during pregnancy. You could say it is in our genes.
LOVE however, if it is repetition in our lives is actually not LOVE at all.
Is it that when man interferes with LOVE it becomes love ?
.
I’m with the process thinkers: Every moment is a moment of transformation.
I am sorry to say but that sounds like a wishful thinking that doesn’t exist…
We are all slowly growing old, rocks eventually get worn into dust, water flows downhill etc… normal mundane movement like entropy might be what is being pointed at - its a common equivocation that occurs when discussing change.
Yes, it’s the fallacy of equivocation, the process philosophy transformation is categorically different from the Krishnamurtian transformation. I’m a big fan of mixing/blurring contexts (as you already know!), I think it reveals connections that are normally hidden. Alas it also confuses. 
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a word or phrase is used in an argument with multiple meanings or senses, and these different meanings are switched or “equivocated” between without proper clarification. This can lead to a misleading or deceptive argument because it uses the ambiguity of language to make a point.
Love is where you are not. That is what K said a thousand times. The self gives importance to secondary things and worships them like money and sex.
We choose to live with the baggage of the self. A bundle of worries and occasional pleasures . I say life has to offer more than that.
As I recall what JK said in this regard was: “where the self is, love is not.”
I don’t know why my comment is in blue and only half of it is seen.
Yes dan the self , you ,me , thought are the same.
No, he said “you are the world”. The ‘self’ is a creation of thought. The ‘self’ is not the world.
We think that when he says you are the world he is giving us a complement. But you are the world means you are as messed up as the world that you have created around you.
1 Like
Is living with the burdens and joys of the self our choice? Choosing A implies there is an alternative to A we can choose. If not, A would not be our choice. Do we really have the ability to choose to not live with the self? Does a victim of long-term abuse (not so different from our relationship with our self, right?!) have the ability to choose to be free of the scars of abuse?
1 Like
That is an excellent question. My mind has no answer. Freedom from abuse , how does that come about?
1 Like
self does not accept non-division and so keeps blaming others for the mess in relationship. In separation self blames co-workers at workplace, husband/wife/parents/siblings at home. self in its divided outlook sucks out the meaning of existence. It is a tragedy when someone feels psychologically completely separated, isolated. Not feeling related to anything or anybody is a deep ache, bottomless well of pain.
Underneath the self is deep ache of loneliness. self separates and builds it’s own prison by only thinking about itself. The prison is ache of loneliness.
Question is how to be free from that. Basic assumption of self has to be questioned. Basic assumption of self is division is real. I am separate from you. self believes in psychologically separating itself from others. That is a meaningless existence.
There has to be a state of mind which has nothing to do with past hurt. There has to be a state free of bondage to past.
The people who went through tremendous suffering had to discover life anew and totally separate from past suffering.
I saw a documentary on survivors of concentration camps. They started a new life, to live a new life with family and all that comes with it, totally separate from past suffering. So what is the new life?
Totally different undivided way of living. What is it? What is the root of it? Life is action. Action needs energy. Is there an energy that is free, unburdened.
Action is not movement of past to future. That is just projection.
Action is feeling of being alive now as action can only be in the moment, not in the future. Is action of the past or free of the past. Action of the past is just mental projection. Action free of the past is what I am interested in.
Why?
2 Likes
Desire (I’m guessing) caused the human brain to choose the machinations of thought over choiceless awareness and direct perception. It wasn’t that we chose to live with “the burdens of self” because the brain didn’t know what the consequence of its choice would be. Did Pandora know what to expect?
Do we really have the ability to choose to not live with the self?
Even if we did have the ability it wouldn’t change anything. Choosing thought over choiceless awareness is the cause, so making another choice is nothing new or radically different from what we’ve been doing ever since we chose escape.
Does a victim of long-term abuse (not so different from our relationship with our self, right?!) have the ability to choose to be free of the scars of abuse?
If the human brain is a victim of the desire that led it to practice escape through thought, desire is The Devil and only God can reset the human brain to be wary of desire and see it for what it is.
So I would say we’re not victims of desire, but very slow (perhaps too slow) to awaken to what desire is and how to live with it with understanding instead of mistaking it for guidance and direction.
1 Like
As long as we try to tackle the self without understanding the root cause or the mother of self which is thought I am afraid that one can not go very far, only superficial modification .
When you see a fact, you don’t question it, so the question ‘why’ does not arise