What else could it be?
According to Krishnamurti, intelligence is beyond the brain, and until/unless the brain awakens to its inherent limitation, it cannot commune with intelligence and be free from the tyranny of the known.
Or to use a different metaphor, will re-manifest in the stream of thought?
I don’t know anything about “the stream of thought” other than what K said about it, and even that I’m not sure I understand. Please explain.
Does ‘seeing the whole’ happen when thought does not divide the world into self/other?
So rather than seeing the whole (self sees object), you are seeing whole (no self/other).
That’s what I hear K pointing at. The whole is “Attention”…it includes ‘inattention’. It includes the self / other relationship with the world and most likely that ‘insight’ dissolves it? But is Attention permanent?
What is the relationship between seeing the whole of a situation, its dynamics from a global perspective, and seeing the whole in the Krishnamurti sense of no self-other?
It means that the self seeing the global perspective is also seen - no self, means the self is seen.
Seems we are talking about two very different ‘wholes.’ Let’s say you were in a dialogue with people whose worldviews were dramatically different from yours. You might see the whole of not dividing into self and other, but utterly miss the whole of understanding the global/holistic nature of the situation.
I.e. seeing the whole in the Krishnamurti sense is no guarantee of seeing the whole in the other sense.
Seeing the whole in that other, more practical sense, is largely a function of coherent thought.
neither view guarantees the other. But one is an opinion, a model and the other is the opinion plus the awareness of the effects of holding an opinion.
Both have their roles to play in engaging with what-is, oui? I wonder if Krishnamurti whole-seeing encourages thought-driven whole-seeing? Is a politician^ who can K-see more apt to view some thorny problem from the holistic multi-pov perspective?
^ Would someone who K-sees go into politics?!!!
Freedom of intelligence is a plus. An extra way based on the allowance of insight/kensho - nondependance on need. It does not mean that one loses the baked in habit of thought and analysis. There is just the extra freedom from frustration/effort. The ability for silent curiosity (eg prayer?)
Buddhas can still do math.
When thinking is guided by seeing things as they truly are, the mind stands a decent chance at whole-ing the situation.
Could it be said that whoever/whatever is seeing is beside the point because I am only a (literal) viewpoint; that seeing is what matters?
Could it be that, without the story, nothing matters? I.e. that ‘to matter’ is part of the story? Could it be without the story things just are, sans what we think of as value? If so, that’s kind of terrifying.
The sequence of events may not always amount to a “story”, but at least it won’t be “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.
Wow, that pretty well sums up my life (thus far). Tale, check. Told by idiot, check. Full of sound and fury, check. Signifying nothing, alas, roger that. And the weather report calls for more of the same.
What is it they say:
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
Sounds like you consider value to be highly valuable
1 Like
We’re taught to compare ourselves to others as children: be happy, be clever, be smart, be rich, famous, be good looking, strong, courageous, upright, etc. Comparison is judgement and we all fall short to one degree or another… and we suffer. If I see comparison as it is happening, that seeing is transformation?
Value’s value seems proportional to dis-ease with life. The happier I feel, the less I worry about value. When I’m dis-ease’d, out of sorts, value (or lack of) takes on a heightened meaning. It’s possible that the quest for value is a substitute for the feeling of contentment.
1 Like