What more clues do we need? You have given the answer - its just that the intellectual understanding is not sufficient - there has to some sort of important reason or “extraordinary energy” (as K sometimes says) in order to give up the self.
The more I think, the more I judge, the more I add to the contents of my consciousness.
Hello and welcome united 78 to this forum!
As far as I can see, the only clue that we have to what Krishnamurti meant is the words that he used. When he said “reading the book of yourself” he used an interesting analogy. Is he talking about the narrative of your life? A book is certainly something that takes time to read and understand and “in one glance” suggest extreme brevity. Does he mean understanding your whole life instantly? How does one do it? I don’t know, but Krishnamuirti’s teachings stress the importance of observation with a silent mind.
I don’t think the intellectual understanding is not sufficient. What I feel is just that I can’t make a jump in to the darkness.
Yes - thats what I mean - why would we do such a scary thing?
On the other hand - whilst it seems impossible for the self to provoke its own spectacular dissapearance - there is also the the more boring mundane “path” of gently being nothing via experimentation with “choiceless awareness” - this of course has the problem of being boring and feels useless.
I’m feeling to be nothing since long time, and not as a consequence of experimentation but just because I “saw” that I couldn’t be nothing more than a fleeting thought in my mind. And I felt very much relaxed after that realization. Far from being boring. It gives me a new sense of life. But it’s not a stable feeling, it comes for a while and then it goes and I’m back to the old habit of thinking I’m someone. So I suppose I have still to stay with “what is” untill the awareness is deeper.
I am it. Any movement of it, IS it. What else?
Why is it scary? The unknown is scary? We can only be afraid of the known. Our fear evoking images come from the known, don’t they?
Consciousness can’t know the ‘reason’ or the solution to this seeming delemna . Consciousness is the problem itself…the prison. And I’m part of consciousness…obviously. So I can do nothing about it…do nothing to bring about change…nothing. I can’t bring about this ‘extraordinary energy’ or ‘important reason’. All ‘I’ can do is to continue…to run around inside the prison.
This is the point. As long as I think I can or must do something I am in the wrong track.
K. said that the problem is as beautiful as a sunset if you look at it.
So if there is resistence or worst I’m afraid it means it’s the wrong approach.
I think it comes naturally. All the best realizations in my life came naturally…
It must right? If I can’t do it, it must happen without ‘me’ involved. It must come TO me…not from me.
Yes, that’s just what I feel.
Thank you Sean.
It’s weird the forum has been designed to have so many posting/character requirements, it won’t allow me to simply thank you. There is a 20 character requirement in all posts as well as in the title.
Thanks united78. I hope you can explore some aspects of Krishnamurti’s teachings on this forum and deepen your understanding. I suppose that is why most of us are here.
Hello Sean, yes that’s the idea, to explore aspects of K’s teachings, but as you can see i am running into some problems. An exploration would be easier when one of the parties knows a bit more than the other but as you can see it seems all of us are in the same boat. Some are honest and admit they don’t know and some try to pass on their beliefs. In any case
Yes, he is talking about the narrative of our own lives and being able to read it in one glance.Yes, he has talked about a choiceless observation in which the mind is silent, but this does not explain the nature of this instant understanding which is also complete. I don’t feel “observation with a silent mind” (which implies time, and coincides to what we are already doing) correlates with “reading the book in one glance”, the latter seems to have a different process. What are we missing?
Hi again united 78. Krishnamurti often warned against previous knowledge when beginning to explore. He often asked the audience to put aside anything they previously knew about a subject before exploration together began as this would hinder discovery.
On reflection, it strikes me that when Krishnamurti spoke about “reading the book of yourself in one glance” he may well have been talking about instant self-knowledge. How many of us really know ourselves that well? Many of us are trapped in patterns of behaviour that we’re not really conscious of most of the time. Self-knowledge must surely be connected with self-awareness and awareness was at the very heart of Krishnamurti’s teachings. So does it come down to the fact that what we are missing is awareness? Does this make any sense?
Hello Sean
Have you ever wondered that so far in our lives we have never had a single perception that is whole and complete, as is being indicated in the phrase "reading the book in one glance”. In other words we have never experienced it. If we are honest, put aside our ideas of what this could or should mean, our speculations, but still interested in exploring, where can we start? We are somewhat familiar with biology aren’t we? Is there a biological basis for the phrase in question? Can there be a complete perception biologically? Is it possible?
Hi again united78. I think that it’s impossible to say with any degree of certainty what perceptions others have had - we simply can’t know this. Perhaps many people have fleeting moments of “whole and complete” perception where they feel totally connected and there is no separation.
I really don’t know about this. Perhaps you could elaborate a little.
Hello Sean
First i want to apologize if my previous comment came across as challenging your’s or anyone else’s perceptions, maybe i could have structured it different.
Actually it is quite possible and rather easy to do so, with very high degree of certainty, when we are talking about physical capacities and not abstract theories like “feeling totally connected without separation”. The first one is demonstrative and rooted in biological factors of the entire human species while the latter is a mushy idea which may be rooted in an emotional acceptance of a comforting idea.
If we put aside any non verifiable claims, or any speculative beliefs on superhumans/superheros, or exceptions, or attempts at being politically correct, a partial and fragmentary perception is an undisputed biological and a psychological fact of entire human species. I think i elaborated a little.
Aren’t we talking about the powers of the mind? It is a question of something of perception, observation or intelligence, and implies we don’t know. We can’t be using our usual ways of inquiry, interrogation, knowledge and beliefs. We can’t apply any interpretation of our own. Usually we think of aspects of life with categorical knowledge and work along that way. Here the word mind, or any other reference, is meant to be immediately, my, your, mind, not just a word. Awareness of the complete indivisible self, is where to start, and not be looking to find it by accumulating more ideas.
Hi again united78. No apology necessary at all - I didn’t take your comment to be challenging to my perceptions in any way.
Well, we all know that it’s very difficult to put into words what Krishnamurti talked about in his teachings without sounding a bit “mushy”. Krishnamurti asked the following questions at the Bombay 4th Public Talk, January 31, 1982
“Have you ever looked at a mountain or blue sea without chattering,
without making a noise, really paying attention to the blue sea,
the beauty of the water, the beauty of the light on a sheet of water?”
Can I ask you the same questions united78? I don’t really see how talking about biology comes in here although there are certainly physiological processes taking place when this type of observation happens.