Supposedly, dreams where you’re trying to escape a threat are preparing you for waking consciousness by reminding you that civilization hasn’t eliminated predators, but only disguised them.
There are predatory people and we need to be reminded, so dreams like this may be necessary, but not too frequently.
How does thought create circumstances?
for knowing in all kinds of ways
How many ways of knowing are there and how much do you know about them?
Thinking is the thinker.
You know there are serious questions and there are questions which are just being clever.
Forums most often get inundated with ’ clever ’ posts where intellectualizing has become a common norm.
It’s ones common understanding and one had heard many times from various people that K teaching is not easy to comprehend and most difficult, challenging to assimilate in ones life. and it’s also very commonly seen once one is connected to the teaching, it becomes quite burdensome even to get dissociated with it.
Certainly it takes tremendous sense of passion, interest to pursue and realise even a fraction of what the teaching is pointing to… It demands every ounce of ’ honesty’ ‘integrity’ and ‘unfragmented’ state of mind to beging with
This made me think of Carl Jung’s work on the “collective unconscious”. He argued, and backed it up with case studies, that we sometimes dream about things that have no root in our personal consciousness or unconscious, but come from a common unconscious.
"On October 19, 1936, Jung delivered a lecture “The Concept of the Collective Unconscious” to the Abernethian Society at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. He said:
My thesis then, is as follows: in addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and which we believe to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal unconscious as an appendix), there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents.
Jung linked the collective unconscious to 'what Freud called “archaic remnants” – mental forms whose presence cannot be explained by anything in the individual’s own life and which seem to be aboriginal, innate, and inherited shapes of the human mind. He credited Freud for developing his “primal horde” theory in and continued further with the idea of an archaic ancestor maintaining its influence in the minds of present-day humans. Every human being, he wrote, “however high his conscious development, is still an archaic man at the deeper levels of his psyche.”
Yes thanks for that Sean, these images or symbols do seem to have a universality about them. This adds another layer to one’s thinking about the personal consciousness; that which is accumulated through life, both conscious and subconscious and also this ‘collective unconsciousness’ which we inherit and all share. A question is, when K has talked of the absolute necessity to empty the ‘contents’ of consciousness both conscious and unconscious, was he also referring to this ‘collective unconsciousness’? …Probably not. He was most likely referring to the accumulated ‘contents’ around a self-image.
I don’t know what you mean when you say that thought can create circumstances. By definition, a circumstance is a condition, fact, or event accompanying, conditioning, or determining another. Thought can respond to circumstances but I don’t see how thought can create them. Please explain.
You say there are “ways of knowing”. What do you mean by this?
This may be very important if we are looking for the underlying reasons of why the ‘self-image’ is so important and so devastatingly divisive and destructive. It is a bulwark against the fear, the inherited fear from the ancestors. Maybe this does have to be ‘emptied’ along with all the rest? It is all imaginary after all, yes?
We don’t have to go chasing after all of it though.
The self/world image (they form a whole delusion, one implying the other) is fragilised (no longer confused with what is) when the whole movement of fear and desire is seen for what it is - self perpetuating fear grounded in evolutionary psychology.
After that, our self is only “emptied” moment to moment as it arises - basically, it is the breaking of the habit of adding to the conditioning, not via effort - the first insight described above allows each movement (thought, discrimination) to die as it arises when there is awareness of the movement .
PS Regarding the idea of “collective unconsciousness” - one should not be afraid of the idea - it being merely an old idea repeated again and again - It has never been demonstrated. The current hypothesis on why so many humans (not all) share the same stories is because we keep telling them over and over again (see Julien D’Huy or phylogenetics)
PPS - re collective consciousness or archetypes - in case my comment above is the cause of further debate - the question is not whether the concept is “true” but rather that it does not explain anything - a bit like the concept of god 
There is an accumulation of thought or knowledge, which is in use in various fields of knowledge. From education, science, medicine, to building, gardening, shopping, and reading, talking and writing. Basically the way the mind is directing our lives is unobserved. It is this unapproachable mind we use to think about things, to inform ourselves, and to give ourselves a sense of ability in our daily lives. It is this same mechanical mind which is trying to find answers, and to appeal to the non-mechanical. Fundamentally we can see this mind is not clearly observing free from thought.
When I read Karl Jung’s book “Man and His Symbols”, I was fascinated by the idea of a common unconscious and immediately thought of what K had said about a common consciousness. I have no idea if it’s possible to empty the contents of this “collective unconsciousness” or where Krishnamurti stood on this but I think what you said above is right.
It’s very interesting, isn’t it? Plain and simple. If I have any image about myself, that image will get hurt and there will be suffering. If I have any image about myself and that image is flattered, there will be pleasure…These self-images are what I carry about. These images with their experiences, memories of the hurts and pleasures, form attachments accordingly. They are me. They ‘chart’ the course of my life. They make up the "contents of my consciousness’…the suffering, fear, must go on as long as any self-image prevails. Seeing the ‘self-image’ in the moment it appears is the emptying of it, isn’t it? As he said in the video you put up in the other thread, the “attention” to your self in the very moment that the self-image feels threatened (or flattered) is like a “flame” that burns the image away. And there is neither hurt, nor pleasure.
What is it that sees the image for what it is? It can’t be I, that which creates and maintains the image. It has to be a part of the brain that has not, heretofore, been awake and operative, seeing for the first and last time, the ongoing process of image construction and maintenance.
Yes, that is how it seems to me, that something is revealed that was hidden. An ‘awareness’ that is awakened. Or as you say connections in the brain that weren’t operative. The ‘self-image’ was never really questioned. Its ‘divisive’ and destructive nature was never understood?
Of our self-image, we’re of two minds. We know from the effects of self-imagery, that maintaining it is a colossal mistake. But our self-image is a blind spot. Because we identify with it, we can’t see it for what it is. The image is the imaginer. So it isn’t until the awakening of that part of the brain that sees this clearly that I am blind to what I am.
It’s when the image that I hold of myself is ‘threatened’, that there arises an awareness of its existence? I get depressed or anxious, or angry, or lonely, etc. I feel ‘put down’ (or raised up)…Don’t we suffer just for having it? Especially when it comes to thoughts of physical suffering and ultimately death?
Yes, as the Buddha came to realize
So how does the “realization” (the ‘emptying’) come about?
I don’t know, but on Oct 28, Emile posted this article about successive time and simultaneity that addresses your question.