The word for the actuality that may only perceived directly, selflessly, timelessly.

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. How do you know “unity is not part of fundamental reality”?

Experience it seems is relationship. Anything beyond experience cannot be experienced.

Sorry, but for me, this is gibberish.

I’m proposing that my idea of unity is merely an idea in my head - of course everything is part of reality - but the ideas in my head are just material processes that come and go, if my beliefs change, my experiences and actions change, but I have probably not transformed base reality (for example : atoms - if we can agree that these exist - have not changed)

You might want to discuss whether the idea of “actual unity” makes sense in our absence ie. whether the thing that the concept is pointing at exists in our absence? This is big philosophy stuff, maybe beyond our scope here - but I’ll go with no, it makes no sense to me - without an agent pointing at divided stuff and united stuff.

Our human experience (what it is like to be me) is a phenomenon that arises from the interaction (relationship) between various other processes - eg. the brain projects our experience based on electrical and chemical input produced by the senses - senses that we presume produce their input based on a relationship with what we call the outside world. I’m positing that there is some kind of relationship between the mental experience and something else - that my mental experience is not all that exists.

Beyond being a simple tautology - I might have been trying to point to the futility of trying to experience more than our animal brains can experience.

I have an image regarding “unity”.
What do we mean by : “what the concept (of unity) is pointing at”?
I think we mean : the idea I have of unity (in my head) is a reflection of something actual that exists outside my head.
This does not logically follow (what I can imagine does not necessarily exist in my absence) - but we confuse utility with truth.

The same question you asked me applies here: How do you know?

How do you know there exists such an actuality? How do you know that it may be perceived? How do you know that it may be perceived only directly, selflessly, timelessly?

The closer we get to the Truth (the true nature of reality) the less possible (meaningful) it gets to capture that Truth in mental constructs: words, images, even feelings. There is no map for the Truth. How do I know? I don’t!

1 Like

Every word is a pointer to a physical thing (tree), mental thing (theory), any type of thing. Just like every map symbol is a pointer to a thing in the territory. But these things may not actually exist, may be mere figments of our (very!) active human imagination.

1 Like

Yes - of course we cannot say that no tree exists (whatever this mysterious tree thing is) - merely that my experience of the tree is demonstrably subjective, conditioned, and usually inexact.

1 Like

Being free within the limits of our conditioning is like having the run of our self-imposed prison.

We are free to come and go as we please, as long as we don’t leave the prison.

The prison’s greatest trick is to fool us into thinking there is no prison!

That said, prisons can be beautiful, like moat-encircled castles.

Do we know the full human potential?
If I was born wearing a blinfold, would I know the limits of my conditioning?

I think we are like the blindfolded person who thinks they know their full potential and is complaining about their new found wisdom : “life is so unfair, being content with darkness is the best I can hope for.”

We think our experience is fundamentally real, solid unchanging truth, whereas actually we wear the blindfold provided by evolution : knowledge and fear.

1 Like

As a result of our study of Krishnamurti’s teaching, we believe we are imprisoned by the way our brains are culturally conditioned to operate. We are conditioned to believe what we choose to believe. Choosing is our freedom.

Evolution probably relies on us believing our experience is fundamentally real and true. When we question the realness of ‘the real’ it may throw us for a loop and lower our ability to survive?

Our “ability to survive” is more threatened by “believing our experience is fundamentally real and true” than our questioning it. We need to be thrown “for a loop”.

Change is inevitable - we are no longer the same apes we once were, and even succesful species dissapear eventually.
Our future survival is not really what keeps me up at night - although I do enjoy getting angry about how stupid humanity is acting - I just reckon that truth is better than continued violence.

Nature is violent at times. Hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, blizzards, volcanic eruptions, plagues, etc., are just part of life on Earth.

But humans may be needlessly violent, so I reckon that we humans ought to find out if we can live and thrive without being violent.

1 Like

Interesting! Lovely example of how you can look at the same thing through different lenses and get opposing views that both have some degree of truth.

1 Like

Hello, im new here. I’d discussed K on reddit before but there aren’t many people there. Is this a good place to learn about and discuss Krishnamurti in your opinion?

Not many people here either - and some people will get mad and insult you (as they do in most places).

Why not just start a couple of conversations and see where they go - I promise to do my best at following along (until I give up)

Macdougdoug is exaggerating. People who get “mad” or feel insulted don’t last here.

I found the reddit Krishnamurti forum poorly moderated, if at all.

How long ago? I heard they were trying out moderation within the last year.

It was before the last year. I had to block someone.