Hi
I have hear K talk about reading the book of yourself in one glance. What does it mean and how does one do it? Thanks
I would suggest to you the post by Huguette on the âCan the Self End?â thread # 217
I read that post but did not see my question addressed. Or are you saying the post itself is an example of reading the book in one glance?
No. The statement by K. is quite unusual and I have not understood it. But I thought that Huguette addressed it. K has said that each one of us is the world and we represent all of humanity. How to read the book in yourself is something that he did not leave instructions on how to doâŚif you are interested, you have to put âyour teethâ into finding out the truth or the falseness of it. Welcome!
Another puzzling thing Krishnamurti said.
It is doable when the book is called The Total Sum of My Wisdom
1 Like
Whatever the book is called itâs certainly not only the sum of the part of âMy Wisdomâ. 
It simply means that âself-knowledgeâ is not something that one acquires via a long drawn out study over time.
It is not about reading books, or listening to theories and hypotheses about psychology, neurology, philosophy etc ⌠although these may be helpful (or hindrances) and interesting and may help in describing the self in order to communicate with other people.
Its not about holding beliefs, or having some intellectual model about the self. Although these may help in that they offer some explanation of the limits of the self.
Its not about therapy, or gaining merits in order to become a better version of ourself over time.
Is this at least clear ?
Therefore it is about immediate insight. Either through some revolutionary realisation of the trap that one continually sets for oneself. Or by the moment to moment awareness of the subtle movement of the self (aka the watcher, the judge)
1 Like
No, Iâm just being flippant which I shouldnât be. I sense it is similar to what Krishnamurti said about seeing a thing, which was, the brain only needs to see one thing fully the once, and then it can take things from there by itself.
First step is to realize that âyour â consciousness is not yours but is the consciousness of MankindâŚrealize the âfactâ of that. That is first.
2 Likes
To the contrary, learning the ways of egocentricity takes time and attention. Self-knowledge isnât magic. It doesnât come out of the blue or with a bang. It comes with time spent taking an interest in the way the mind operates. All the error and distortion and subterfuge that takes place can be ignored, denied, and rationalized, or it can be acknowledged and, over time, comprehended and understood.
United78, hi,
What does one usually mean by âlearning about oneselfâ? It starts with some kind of discontent, doesnât it? That is, Iâm unhappy with myself: Iâm always angry, or anxious, afraid, depressed; I fail at everything I do; no one likes or loves me; I have no friends, people push me around, take advantage of me, and so on. So I want to change all that. I want inner peace, like I assume others have.
And how does one usually go about learning about oneself? Through analysis of some kind, isnât it? Either through actual psychoanalysis, or psychotherapy of some sort which also involves analysis, or through reading books written by experts in human behaviour or religious authorities, through which I can learn to analyze myself.
The analytical approach assumes that âIâ can change from this to that by analyzing myself and so be happy. In it, there is no questioning of what constitutes this âIâ that wants to change. There is no questioning of what it means for âmeâ to change and also remain the same âmeâ - the same person and yet different - happy instead of unhappy, calm instead of angry, serene instead of depressed. This approach assumes that at the end of a successful analysis, âIâ will somehow be the same âmeâ âŚâŚ but different.
There is another approach to understanding oneself, to understanding the terrible emotions which preclude peace of mind. This approach is not through analysis and words; it does not blame my mother, my father, my circumstances; it does not demand an effort. This other approach does not review and dwell on the past. It consists âmerelyâ of observation - observing the anger, the fear, the anxiety, the depression, the self-pity, the deceit, the contradictions, and so on - without analyzing any of it. That is, it is observing the whole thing at a glance as it arises, without the word, the naming, the analysis, without time (without âme in the presentâ reviewing âme in the pastâ and so âme fragmenting myselfâ).
In so observing, it is realized that my fear, anger, etc. are rooted in the past - which is merely memory. I can pretend to overcome and free myself from the past. But I AM the past and I cannot extricate myself from it, and pretense is obviously not inner peace. So it is realized that, psychologically, I cannot cut the past out of my psyche and become a new me. No?
And âthere is no end to learningâ (K). But learning about oneself is learning which cannot be cumulative. Cumulative learning is the kind of learning we associate with school and school books. Cumulative learning and analysis have their proper place. But learning about oneself can only be at a glance. I might be mistaken. But this is how I see it.
4 Likes
This dichotomy is interesting.
There are the concepts of wisdom and of knowledge; are they related? are they dependant?
There are the concepts of insight and of learning : are they related? are they dependant?
If I study psychology, or philosophy this obviously does not naturally result in âfreedom from the knownâ or mental ease and clarity - and any insight by the serious student will obviously be conditioned by their knowledge.
If one observes oneself, what do I see? My subjective intepretations and conjecture - circular delusion in a sense.
This reminds me of stories about monks âawakeningâ after years of practise and effort, and realising :âall those years of effort was just useless thrashing about as if in a dreamâ
But of course, one must wonder : without all that useless effort, would there still have been any sense of awakening?
1 Like
First of all nobody of us here knows how to do it. Second: K. stated clearly that there is no âhowâ. You should hear his spech about this point.
Third, I think this expression is equivalent to what he often used to say: âCan you see the whole content of your consciousness at once?â. He meant -probably - that itâs useless to analyze oneâs thoughts or content one at a time. That wonât lead anywhere. There must be an insight of the whole stuff. But this insight seems absolutely impossible to me⌠and of course this shows the limitations of my point of view.
No. It wasnât âuselessâ. One learns what is true by âthrashing aboutâ with what is false.
Thank you all for the replies.
It is not impossible. Only the way you are âimaginingâ seeing the whole of consciousness at once. If you are having the insight, then you couldnât be seeing the whole, because you are still outside of it, right? Why not just leave it as a question. You / we are the "contentsâ of the consciousness.
Yes ,that is right ,K said either you read the book of yourself chapter by chapter which involves time ( maybe oneâs whole life) or one reads the whole book in a glance or in an insight?
I am sure that is the question. And the answer seems to be clear.
Yes, a question and so a possibility. I just wanted to be realistic and not pretend to have the answer.
One can take a question as something to explore (as K said: the answer is in the question), but in this kind of questions there is nothing to explore except my limited point of view. What I feel is: the more I think of my consciousness the more Iâm stuck with it. Any clue?