According to K’s bio he didn’t have a Krishnamurti doing a Krishnamurti on him.
He had a bunch of weirdos raising him on total woowoo.
comprehension of a problem eliminates the problem (capishe?)
The Krishnamurti woo-woo key!
Maybe for supremely rational and unneurotic peoples?
Rick. Maybe for supremely rational and unneurotic peoples?
[/quote]
“Comprehending” that ‘I’ AM the problem maybe all that is needed?
I don’t know - depends on what neurosis is I suppose, as we are all able to feel anxious, depressed etc - and by comprehension I didn’t mean holding to a conclusion based on some analytical narrative.
What do you mean by comprehension? Is it like realization: understanding and experiencing?
1 Like
“[S]ome might say: ‘Fragmentation of cities, religions, political systems, conflict in the form of wars, general violence, fratricide, etc., are the reality. Wholeness is only an ideal, toward which we should perhaps strive.’ But this is not what is being said here. Rather, what should be said is that wholeness is what is real, and that fragmentation is the response of this whole to man’s action, guided by illusory perception, which is shaped by fragmentary thought. In other words, it is just because reality is whole that man, with his fragmentary approach, will inevitably be answered with a correspondingly fragmentary response. So what is needed is for man to give attention to his habit of fragmentary thought, to be aware of it, and thus bring it to an end. Man’s approach to reality may then be whole, and so the response will be whole.”
– Wholeness and the Implicate Order by Uncle David
When observing the fragmented nature of thought, it’s crucial to keep in mind that the instrument doing the observing, or perhaps more accurately the interpretation of what is observed, is also fragmented. How is it possible for a fragmented instrument to observe-understand the whole? Maybe the best the instrument can do is know that it can’t observe-understand the whole?
Sometimes I feel like all roads lead to the same place, the edge of the cliff kinda. ?
Remember : (like your pal uncle David said) by wholeness we do not mean some imagined impossible situation
Its actually something that (most) anyone can see - like for example, not just smelling the rose, but also seeing the petals, the stalk (and maybe also the hand that has separated the flower from the plant)
That is the only wholeness that needs to be seen, not whats going on in Zeus’ bathroom, which only mega-buddhas can see (though they don’t really bother looking at stuff of no importance I’ve heard)
Is it better to be (insert image of most horrendous thing possible), or not to be, to be nothing at all?
Is it better to continually impose pain on whatever we can, or not to be?
If we can get to the edge of the metaphorical cliff, everybody says jump (including Disney and Jesus) it’ll be okay. But we must decide alone. (and as usual we have no choice, we always do what must be done, either from clarity or delusion, love or fear)
Yes. I’ll try to remember, though I’m apt to forget, because imagining an ideal ‘whole’ and the possibility I might see/realize it, is a lovely carrot (that remains just out of reach). And the notion that ‘reality is for those who lack imagination’ is seductive, who wouldn’t want to play God?
I guess it’s possible to understand the whole as whatever-is when my mind is unfragmented.
How does the notion of limited free will sit with you? I.e. I am a strongly conditioned being (by DNA and personal life experience, culture, family). My conditioning limits my ‘radius of choice,’ but within my limits I have some degree of freedom in what I choose to think/do.
In this case, the whole would be very much a lot less than that.
The whole as in the whole process under consideration, rather than the whole of infinity in this moment (which is probably once again, a meaningless concept)
For example, rather than only seeing what I want; is it possible to see the whole process of self and desire?
I can choose the blue shirt - but if I don’t know why I choose the blue shirt (or how my thoughts about why I choose the blue shirt etc) - I’m just as free as chat GPT (who will pick the blue shirt exactly 35% of the time)
But what if the process under consideration is a fragment of a larger and more significant process? Using your example, what if the self/desire process is a fragment of the process of universal Self?
You’re saying if your unconscious chooses, it’s not free will? Can the unconscious be free?
If a lumberjack won’t chop down a tree before knowing whether the neutrinos in the center of the sun are happy or sad (because trees are made of solid sunlight - maybe) - I’d say they aren’t really going to make it in the lumberjacking world.
To be on the cusp between freedom and despair.
Is love a good litmus test for spiritual maturity?
What do we mean by love in this case?
Even more difficult : what have we ever meant by spiritual?
Without any definitions, it would seem that all we can say is that my experience indicates the current state of affairs in this brain.
Let’s start with spiritual maturity, what does it mean: Seeing things as they really are?
It makes sense to me that “maturity” here would mean that the mind has freed itself from its conditioned state and is aware of what takes place without judgement; the ‘me’ dissolves being seen as an aspect of the conditioning?
And/or the me is seen for both what it appears to be and what it actually is?