Let’s accept the fact that most of us don’t see things like K does or did…
It’s like asking why do you wear clean clothes or take a shower. It is obvious, isn’t it. If someone sees the sanity of something directly, they do not need to ask themselves the question, why should I take a shower. Someone who doesn’t see the sanity of it, asks why.
Why should I live without conflict?
Why should I live in freedom without the past?
If we see importance of something directly, we don’t ask why. This is not an intellectual discussion. We are trying to find something directly in daily life, perceiving it. Discussion is only a trigger but cannot replace life
Yes! There are exceptional humans, geniuses, in all the realms that ‘genius’ applies: logical thinking, the arts, the sciences, even spirituality. Though we might passionately study an Einstein all our lives, we will almost certainly never have the level of insights he had.
I understand. But I see things a bit differently, a bit more ‘intellectually,’ like looking at a Mystery that perhaps we are not able to solve completely, but can solve partly. For me, the only ‘fact’ I am sure is true is that all ‘facts’ are conceptual constructs, relative truths, not absolutes. (And, yes, even that ‘fact’ is an idea, truth, not Truth.) And I question my facts, not always, because it is rather frightening to question the foundation of your belief system, your grip on reality.
I see the past as an incontrovertible truth, close to Truth perhaps. To be able to live in complete freedom from the past seems highly improbable, probably impossible. Which of course doesn’t mean we are unable to live in partial freedom from the past, I think we can!
But aside from whether living 100% free of the past is a realistic goal or not, I question WHY we should want freedom from the past. What are the consequences, gross and subtle, of living utterly free from the past?
Studying the insights of others is like the difference between studying ancient writings and living in ancient times. or hearing about the taste of chocolate and actually tasting chocolate.
But our brains are pretty similar, the experience of tasting chocolate might be pretty similar.
Einstein famously said that the main difference between him and the people who don’t get insight, is that he “stays with the problem longer” ie is not distracted by squirrels, or shallow, immediate thoughts/conclusions/answers.
The only similarity that I see between Einstein and K is that they both see the false as false.
And yes they used all of their Brain .
Brain is indeed fascinating…
We don’t really know how many passionate students of Einstein never had “the level of insights he had” because where insight matters most is self-knowledge, and a brain as insightful as Einstein may have had an insight into the human condition, the limitation of the scientific method, and turned its attention to turning the attention of other brains to the importance of self-knowledge.
The past that is being spoken here, I believe, is the image of yourself built up over time…it carries over from the past into the present moment…bringing the past into the present each moment? That ‘you’, doesn’t actually exist so why drag it into each new moment? Especially when its presence seems to cause a psychological ‘division’ and all that ensues from that?
K describes this ‘self’ as a creator of the ‘darkness of division’ that only insight can dispel. “There is no division” he says.
1 Like
It depends on what you mean by “utterly free from the past”.
If we could attend completely to what’s actually happening as it happens without words, images, or exclamations, we’d be more interested in what’s actually unfolding than in what we make of it. History has its place and memory is essential, so being free of the past just means not being unduly influenced by it.
If it’s possible to be completely present, it’s possible to be aware of how the past is effecting the present, and possible to tell whether its effect is appropriate or not.
1 Like
What is beyond love or compassion? Is it health which is the most important thing in life?
In ‘truth and actuality’ Bohm did to Krishnamurti the
suggestion to speak better of accurate than truth to avoid misunderstandings, which he accepted.
In this context, do you see a difference between accurate and truth?
1 Like
‘There is a tree by the river…As the sun slowly rises over the horizon, over the trees, this particular tree becomes all of a sudden golden. All the leaves are bright with life. And as the day begins, the leaves with the light on them dance and give it that peculiar feeling that one has of great beauty. By midday, its shadow has deepened, and you can sit there protected from the sun, never feeling lonely, with the tree as your companion. If you establish a relationship with it, then you have a relationship with humanity. You are responsible then for that tree and for the trees of the world. But if you have no relationship with the living things on this earth, you may lose whatever relationship you have with humanity, with human beings.’
You may find this excerpt in ‘Krishnamurti to Himself’ (1981).
Reading it, you find there is no division here between you and the environment, no conflict between past and present or future, everything flows, one into the other, harmoniously, everything is clear and described with beauty and sensitivity. I would say there is love underlying all this.
What are the consequences of not being free? In that case you are not in direct relationship. You are isolated. Is that life?
What ever is said is based on state one was that lasted barely a second and seems to have left a trace based on which whatever is said is said.
That was a state of Love where there was no division. So the question of saying, doing etc does not arise.
Yes, for me ‘accurate’ works better because it makes the relative aspect of the ‘trueness’ clearer.
‘I’ is the most persistent and foundational thought-feeling every individual human has throughout their entire lives. There are exceptions, enlightened humans, moments of I-lessness for normal humans. But these exceptions are very rare. To say ‘I’ doesn’t actually exist seems inaccurate. Closer to the truth might be (for me) something like: ‘I’ exists as a persistent thought form. And then I guess the question is: Are thought forms real? (In what way?)
What is the essence of that love? No thought-felt division? No conflict? Flow? Harmony? Clarity, beauty, sensitivity? What use is it (if any) to search for the essence of love?
By “Is that life?” I’m assuming you mean something like “What kind of life is that?” (Because even the most isolated people are physically and mentally alive.) What kind of life is a life without freedom? My life. Your life (probably). The lives of all members of the forum (probably). Along with the lives of 99.999999% of all humans throughout all human history. Are these un-free (partly free) lives flawed, limited, imperfect? JA!!! Are they not worthy to be called lives? NEIN!!! 
When k speaks of humanity and human beings he doesn’t mean an individual or a collective being with gang mentality.