It seems to me that if the conditioned, self-centered brain could imagine freedom, it would be free. I say this because I can’t imagine freedom without negating myself, and I can’t negate myself. Even if through the use of a psychedelic substance my self is negated, my self is reinstated when the effect of the substance wears off. The fact is, I cannot negate itself. The self can only sustain, modify, and reinstate its concept of itself because that’s what the human brain has been doing for millennia, and not doing it is literally inconceivable.

Since we know from the experience of altered consciousness that the self is a condition and not a fundamental fact; that the ground of being is not about who experiences it, but about what existence is without any authority above and beyond the facts of life as they unfold in the eternal Now, why doesn’t the human brain acknowledge its self for what it is and be done with being something other than what it has no choice but to be aware of?

K: " The important thing is what you are now, and not whether you believe or don’t believe, whether your experiences are psychedelic or merely ordinary. What matters is to live at the height of virtue (I know you don’t like that word)." What are you now?


All words are potentially misleading. Because of our relation to those words.


(ˈvɜːtjuː; -tʃuː)


1. the quality or practice of moral excellence or righteousness

2. a particular moral excellence: the virtue of tolerance.

3. (Theology) any of the cardinal virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance) or theological virtues (faith, hope, and charity)

4. any admirable quality, feature, or trait

5. chastity, esp in women

6. archaic an effective, active, or inherent power or force

7. by virtue of in virtue of on account of or by reason of

8. make a virtue of necessity to acquiesce in doing something unpleasant with a show of grace because one must do it in any case

[C13: vertu, from Old French, from Latin virtūs manliness, courage, from vir man]

ˈvirtueless adj

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

At least K knew his audiences didn’t like that word.

Unfortunately the world is becoming more and more mediocre. Excellence hardly exists anymore.

Audience: That is what the lady is asking, Sir. She asks how can you negate that which you are. You said to negate disorder is change and the lady asks: “If I am the disorder, how can I negate it?”

Krishnamurti: Ah! I will explain. How can I negate disorder if I am disorder? I am the nation, I am the belief, the disorder. If the “I” negates disorder, that very I, which is separate, will create yet another form of disorder. That is your question, Madam? Right. When you say “negate disorder”, what do you mean by that? Who is there to negate disorder? Please follow this slowly, step by step. This disorder is the cause of thought: my belief and your belief, my God and your God, my formula and your formula, my prejudice opposed to your prejudice. So I am that disorder and thought is that disorder, because I am thought. Right? Thought is me and the “me” is disorder. So, when one negates this, one negates thought, not disorder: not “I” negate it. Look, I am disorder. This disorder is created by thought, which is me and which brings about separation. That’s a fact. What, then is the negation of this fact? Who is it that is going to deny this disorder and put it aside? What is it that is going to change this? Is that clear? Now the negation of disorder is silence. Any movement of thought will only breed further disorder. Then you will ask, how thought is to come to an end, who is to bring to a stop this perpetual motion that is going on night and day?

Thought itself must deny itself. Thought itself sees what it is doing - right? - and therefore thought itself realizes that it has to come of itself to an end. There is no other factor than itself. Therefore when thought realizes that whatever it does, any movement that it makes, is disorder (we are taking that as an example), then there is silence. The nature of the change from disorder is silence. I do not know if you’ve ever seen or felt the quality of silence: when the mind and the body are extraordinarily quiet. That is, when you want to see something very clearly, when you want to hear something that is being said with all your heart and mind, your body is quiet and your mind is quiet. It is not a trick. It is quiet. In the same way, disorder and the manner of change are resolved only when there is complete silence. it is silence that brings about order, not thought.

1969 at Stanford University

1 Like


That is a tremendous fact to realize.

1 Like

Assuming that K meant that psychological thought must deny itself and come of itself to an end, wouldn’t it have to identify itself as psychological thought (not practical thought) to do this? Obviously, practical thought mustn’t deny itself and come to an end, and psychological thought is mendacious and escapist, so how can it come clean and drop dead?

We could speculate why thought created ‘you’ , ‘me’, ‘mine’; was it for continuity of itself? Whatever, it can see the disorder resulting from that move, the division caused, the endless wars and division etc., the neuroticism and the imbalance that we were talking about. It knows the ‘thinker’ is an illusion created by it and that it actually does not exist. And as K discovered, thought is the only factor that can end itself as the ‘self, the ‘I’, the false ‘entity’, the me and mine.
The ‘Art of seeing’ is to that end.

I don’t see how psychological thought can see what it is because it is fundamentally dishonest. It is the denial, dismissal, and distortion of what actually is for the sake of what-should-be.

So it is up to practical thought to be quiet because its function is to respond practically to problems, and psychological thought is The Problem. But this raises the question of Why doesn’t practical thought see what psychological thought is doing? Is it too confused to do what must be done, too infused with psychological thought to be practical?

Are there actualy 2 separate forms of thought? Are they coming from 2 différent places?
My feeling is that we are dealing with 2 different aspects of the same thing. The differences are in utility and also in experience or relationship, mainly towards the authority of the thought.

1 Like

I don’t believe that thought in itself has any authority at all.
It is rather the “me” that assumes this authority and thought will only tell you as an instrument of the me.
In fact, it is telling itself. Seeing this means that there is no division between thought and the thinker. Are you with me?
So, I think that it is not thought that should be examined but rather the originator, which is me, here and now. Is this possible? I do not know, but at least it is worth trying or doing the very thing.

How do we determine whether I am the the originator of thought?
What constitutes self examination? Is it when we examine the thoughts?

Or course.

So, I think that it is not thought that should be examined but rather the originator, which is me, here and now. Is this possible?

Yes, the brain invents “me”, maintains this identity by updating it constantly, and I am this process.

To me, the question is whether I, this process, can be seen for what it is because that would be the end of it. Right now, though, all I can see is that I am this process, I can’t stop it, and I can’t stop watching it…it’s riveting.

This is what we, human beings, all have in common: the me, that is everlastingly compelling, except for these moments when it is absent.
I have to admit that these moments are rare and we seem to have the inclination to abide with them and in this process making them “experiences” or “insights”.
Maybe this happens because we are leading (i am not generalising), better say i am leading a dull life , with now and then a “spark” of attention.
I am not sure whether all this leads too. And for that matter i could have deleted this reply, but (un)fortunately I did not.

We have been taught , over and over again, that we are individuals.
So, most of us, accept this as a fact : i am me, i have thoughts.
This division is established in our mind and this mind has been conditioned to think likewise.
Now comes K and he asks us : is this factual or is it merely a thought generated by the conditioning.
Isn’t it up to us to find this out, by ourselves?

Yes only by ourselves but that does not preclude talking with others who are also interested in ‘all this’.

1 Like

Ofcourse. That’s why i often go to Brockwood.
I live in Ghent, Belgium and we have also a K dialogue group.
So yes, I assume that these people are seriously involved in all this, though I have my doubts when I hear them talk and see what they are doing.
So I wonder what is it that makes me think that I am better, that I am more serious?

I am still at a loss for an answer.
P.s. i know that i wander off from the topic. Will you excuse me for it?