Hi fraggle
This is what I wanted to say: above
Sorry for replying so late.
I would say that what drives us is unconscious; we react because we are unconscious of the content. Only in retrospect, after the reaction has occurred, do we realize it. This observation doesnât take place âneutrallyâ, but with an unconscious, automatic labeling or evaluation, i.e. another reaction, when thought is active.
The supposedly conscious decisions, e.g. to meditate, to follow a spiritual path - we canât be sure that they donât also arise from the unconscious action of the content of consciousness, can we?
What are the consequences of not being able to know for sure whether (i.e. to what extent) our seemingly conscious actions are influenced by unconscious actions?
What are the consequences if we cannot know with certainty whether (or to what extent) our seemingly conscious actions are influenced by unconscious actions?
The consequence is that we cannot make a distinction between âconscious, intentional thinking" and âunconscious thinkingâ or content.
Presumably to dissolve our internal authority structure it would be a matter of understanding the basic features of thinking, the main characteristics of thinking: Thinking without knowledge and without what is known is not possible. This also includes perspectives for the future, ideas, beliefs and goals. All of this is based on what is known (and therefore limited) and cannot lead beyond it.
Thought is limited, not unlimited, though we might think otherwise.
âBut because the listeners canât stop streaming their contents, they canât really listen, andâŚâ so life goes on as usual because there are no intended effects in what the one who speaks has said. The one who speaks, being the exception to corruption, is a light to itself, has no relationship with the corrupted humans who do not really listen, and⌠the one is aware of this. So why does the one speak? Because it is human to speak, because by speaking the one fulfills what is natural to all humans, because by speaking the one does as every other human does, and⌠because of this the one goes unnoticed. Butâif something the one has said has been cause for derision, then the one has brought others to attention, has made others aware of something, then the possibility of really listening is there.
I guess you meant the opposite, didnât you?
Why does the child who finds something that seems wonderful to him run to tell his parents about it? And do his parents listen to him?
The one who speaks is the exception to corruption, has no images of anything, sees clearly; on the other hand, the corrupted humans have, because they are corrupted, all kinds of images, they are confused; therefore, there is no relationship between the uncorrupted one and the corrupted humans, although there is interaction between them.
The child wants to share the way that is natural to the child, the same way that a flower in its natural environment shares its perfume; but the parents are too busy thinking about their own problems, so if they listen, they do according to their own conditioning.
That is why he relates all the time to any so-called âcorrupt human beingâ he meets, even though he clearly sees that they do not relate to him. And that relationship is what can bring about a change in any so-called âcorrupt human beingâ he encounters.
You see, you yourself have answered your question, which was âSo why does the one speak?â.
All the parents?
The uncorrupted one speaks to the corrupted ones who believe he is speaking the truth.
They are corrupt because they are believers, but they are not good believers; they are
dissatisfied with belief. They are more interested in what is beyond belief than in how to be better, more successful believers.
1 Like
I really donât like this word âcorruptâ⌠Itâs a judgement word. Using it to describe yourself or other humans is not âintelligentâ.
1 Like
Whatâs wrong with judgement when itâs accurate?
To be corrupt is to trust yourself.
Using it [corrupt] to describe yourself or other humans is not âintelligentâ.
I donât know what intelligence is. Do you?
I know you addressed this question to Dan, so I hope neither of you mind me jumping in here.
There are obviously many different kinds of intelligence but I understand that K talked about a kind of intelligence which comes from awareness and sensitivity. For example, I might observe a friend talking about youth crime and what he/she says shows great understanding and compassion regarding this extremely complex subject. I would say that this was an example of intelligence. Surely we can all observe intelligence which comes from great understanding from time to time, canât we?
I think this is right. To see a situation âaccuratelyâ is intelligent. To see it with âcareâ? If I see it through my preformed images or opinions etc., I canât see it accurately, I canât see it intelligently if I have made a judgement , good or bad, about it.
To see myself with understanding , accurately, means that there has to be careâŚnot with a prejudgement of âcorruptionâ.
1 Like
Perhaps, but the intelligence Krishnamurti spoke of is not the intellectual expertise we think of as intelligence. Our inability to comprehend what he said has to do with his use of words like compassion, love, seeing, listening, observation, etc., because the conditioned brainâs understanding of what these words signify is paltry, anemic, inadequate.
1 Like
Yes, but how can the self-deceiving brain know when it is accurate and when it is self-serving? As long as I, me, mine is at stake, I decide what is accurate or not.
To see myself with understanding , accurately, means that there has to be careâŚnot with a prejudgement of âcorruptionâ.
Can âmyselfâ be seen as an actuality, or can it only be judged as a performance? Can myself be anything but thought?
If I am a stand-in for a human being, a functioning representative of a dysfunctional brain, isnât that corruption?
When the corrupt brain acknowledges its corruption, it is facing the fact that it is doing what it believes in doing instead of functioning beyond belief.
We each have to answer that for our self.
Youâve seen my answer. Whatâs yours?
The answer here is yes. The self, the center, the me can be seen.
So you say, but you, the self, the seer, will say anything that seems to hit the spot.
I canât see my self - I can only hear it, and thatâs all that matters because I am a stream of consciousness, the babbling brook that sustains me.
Could you please explain the difference between hearing and seeing the self?
On the other hand, let me ask: if you canât see the self, how do you know that you are âa stream of consciousness, the babbling brook that holdsâ something youâve never seen?
1 Like