If psychological dependency is finding a place where I am safe and sound,
fully committed to never losing my place, psychological freedom must be losing my place until it’s always here.
That takes ‘time’ and time is poison.
Time is all we know, so if it’s poison to you and you can’t stop “using it”, time is not the problem - our addiction to it is
But getting back to your reply to “psychological freedom must be losing my place until it’s always here”, of which you said, “That takes ‘time’ and time is poison”, implying that you know something about what it takes to be free, no longer addicted.
I know what Krishnamurti said about “the first step”, total insight, awakening now or never, etc., I know that I’m addicted to time, and I know I need to quit, but I can’t. I will just keep taking my time capsules until I’m dead…or if I’m lucky, my addiction will die before I do.
So adopt his secret and “don’t mind what happens”.
Is that what you do, or do you just give advice?
It would be a great help for me to reflect on your quote, if I had more clarity, on this question.
Are psychological dependency and physical dependency interconnected?
Not sure which quote you’re referring to.
The physical body is dependent on air, food, water, etc in order for it to stay healthy. This includes the brain. Psychologically, is dependence necessary at all? Psychologically for whatever reasons a ‘center’ (me) has been formed; a ‘self’, an ‘ego’. A psychological enclosure? The self’s dependancys vary from person to person.
1 Like
Kay, howdy. Everything is interconnected, right? Both from the perspectives of science (quantum world) and spirituality (non-duality). So yes psychological and physical dependency are interrelated. Do both forms of dependency arise from the same source?
2 Likes
Both forms of dependency do not arise from the same source. Dependency on what we need to keep living and functioning arises from physical necessity. Psychological dependency is all in one’s mind; conclusions one has drawn for lack of self-knowledge.
I guess what I’m wondering is whether there is a fundamental ________ (not sure what the right word would be: reality, truth, ground) from which both the physical and mental spring?
When it comes to dependency both physical and psychological are two different aspects and they are interrelated, though their source may be different.
Are they interdependent?
We have yet to see psychology without a physical, so obviously there is a relation.
And neither have been seen without an interpretive consciousness - all concepts spring from mind.
And mind tells us all things spring from the cosmos (but thats just the mind talking)
1 Like
You are saying physical and psychological dependency are related to each other and are questioning whether they are interdependent. I’m not sure I see the difference. How might they be related but independent?
Hai Rick,
I had the faintest doubt, so I raised this question if it is possible to be interrelated yet Independent. Even when I was thinking about it I could find any seperation. Thank You for responding.
Going back to the discussion…
When the physical and psychological are two different aspects yet are interconnected and interdependent, Can psychological freedom be experienced without physical independence?
You’re asking whether we can be psychologically free when we’re physically un-free (dependent).
What does being free psychologically mean to you?
Psychology, by definition, is “the mental or behavioral characteristics of an individual or group”. Krishnamurti said that the psychology of the conditioned brain is incoherent, a confusion of practical and psychological thought. So psychological freedom is the end of thought’s incoherence, the end of psychological thought.
But this is just conjecture because I can’t be aware of my confusion when there’s no awareness of I as a conjuration.
1 Like
You often talk about not grokking the reality of the I. And you usually sound very confident about it.
What is doing the not-grokking? What so confidently knows that it isn’t grokking? This confidence, should you put your trust in it, accept it as truth? Could it be leading you astray?
1 Like
The only thing I know for sure is that I can be mistaken, so I’d rather question what I think I know than assert it if it isn’t self-evident or demonstrable.
You’ve taken reason (evidence, demonstrability, certainty) as your guide, sounds like.
What are the pros and cons of putting so much trust in reason? Is it working for you?
When thought doesn’t stop, reason is all you have…unless you know of something else.