I lean towards seeing it that way too, but I have my doubts, it may be oversimplified.
If from the known the unknown cannot possibly be seen, then what does it mean to fear the unknown? To fear the unknown is to take the unknown for what it is not, that is, to take the unknown for “something” imagined; thus, what is actually feared is not the unknow, it is rather the known that dwells in the imagination. On the other hand, there is the fear also of not knowing anything at all.
On the other hand, can there be fear absent the known? Isn’t fear dependant on what we know - and what our imagination creates with that knowledge.
I face life purely on the foundation of my opinions (dude).
Thank you, macdougdoug, for this response. In the imagination is where we invent the demons that subsequently chase us. Fear of not knowing is more precisely fear of the imagined consequences of not knowing, therefore, to avoid this fear—of not knowing and of the imagined consequences of not knowing—“I” struggle to become knowledgeable of something.
For anyone who—conditioned or unconditioned—is willing to look attentively, nature holds a great variety of life teachings that are only waiting to be discovered. Perhaps many are somehow familiar with what the “lilies of the fields” and the “birds of the air” teach, and like these excellent teachers there are many others. I find in the life cycle of insects a profound teaching about transformation, like that of the life cycle of the butterfly. A caterpillar hatches from an egg that is “stuck” to a leaf, it eats from the “bitter” leaf in very “predictable patterns” until it decides that it has had enough, then “breaks away” from its environment—from everything—by enclosing itself in a cocoon, to take care of something that only it can do alone, in complete isolation. After becoming transformed, the butterfly exits and flies away from the “old” cocoon to start a new life, in complete freedom, detached from the earth, taking flight in completely random and unpredictable paths from flower to flower to enjoy their “sweet” nectar. Such a teacher, the butterfly!
Freedom per Krishnamurti is freedom from psychological conditioning. Freedom per the more conventional view is freedom of choice and possibility.
Applying the metaphor of a painter and their palette of colors:
Krishnamurtian freedom is for the painter to use colors without being influenced by their past experiences with them. Conventional freedom is for the painter to have access to a huge number of colors and to be able to use them any (damn!) way they want.
What does freedom mean to you?
“Is it possible not to think about pleasure or pain? Is it possible to think only when thought is demanded, but not otherwise?” (JK) For how long can a brain remain quiet? For how long can the mind hold itself without a thought? It is extremely difficult for me to do these things for more than one minute, maybe less. This is why meditation is extremely important.
It means knowing I can’t predict the future and can only be prepared for what is most likely to happen next, and not be influenced by what I want/don’t want to happen farther down the road.
It means I live entirely in the present, so whatever I think about the future is speculative and can’t be taken too seriously.
On the other hand, there is the fear also of not knowing anything at all.
Can I know nothing at all and still know I? If I know I is an illusion, do I exist as anything more than thought?
There is no “I” to know other than an image of an invented “I”.
Is it a deception to believe that the moment I pass away the universe will continue to exist? Is it something that can be known? I wonder. I see that life continues when someone other than me has passed away, has turned into ashes. But, if it is a fact that “the inner creates the outer, and the outer then shapes the inner”, then the universe that I perceive must be an image in my brain, an illusion of my own senses, and if that is the case, then the moment I pass away the universe of my perception must vanish with me. I wonder.
You may be on to something Manuel, I just heard a leaf right before it fell say “Well this is the end of all the forests…goodbye!”
Isn’t believing self-deception? What I know I don’t have to believe. What I believe is what I don’t really know.
Do you believe that’s a fact?
the universe that I perceive must be an image in my brain, an illusion of my own senses, and if that is the case, then the moment I pass away the universe of my perception must vanish with me.
I don’t see why it wouldn’t “vanish with me”, but who knows?
Draw freely from all views. Hold to none.
Draw freely from all views. Hold to none. (Interpreted by AI painter.)
I’ve read that thought is material. How is that so? I can understand that brain cells are matter but is the thought / thinking that emerges from them considered matter?
Me: Could you please explain why neuroscience says that thought is a material process in the brain?
Certainly. In neuroscience, thoughts are believed to emerge from complex patterns of neural activity. When neurons in the brain communicate through electrochemical signals, they form intricate networks that represent and process information. Cognitive processes, including thoughts and perceptions, are thought to be the result of these neural patterns and connections. While the exact mechanisms are still being explored, the material basis of thoughts lies in the structural and functional properties of the brain’s neural networks.