If we want to change existing conditions, we must first transform ourselves, which means that we must become aware of our own actions, thoughts and feelings in everyday life. Jiddu Krishnamurti (2012). “Social Responsibility”, p.72, Krishnamurti Foundation of America*
“If you begin to understand what you are without trying to change it, then what you are undergoes a transformation.” ― J. Krishnamurti
Of course, the inner and outer are a movement of co-creation. But we are so confused by all the knowledge and the words : me wanting to change the situation is a good description of the perpetual movement of self. Me transforming my self also describes my everyday efforts and desires.
This is much more clear and helpful. Transformation is not about the perfection of self, it is about freedom from the self - which comes from seeing what the movement of self is all about, and thus seeing that freedom is essential.
Unfortunately, we don’t seem to feel any real need to see. Luckily for us, we fall into silence and freedom anyway from time to time, as a matter of circumstance.
My understanding of these K quotes goes like this: It may be necessary to not ‘try to change’ in order to see what we really are. This seeing is the ‘transformation’, whatever that is. Once we see what we really are then we can change existing conditions. First things first. (It seems nothing is without change.) So from today’s dialogue, if we are the world, and another is irritating, we may need to look at how we irritate others. And another question from today’s dialogue, how long must we be dependent on Krishnamurti?
Yes, well I think its important to not be a jerk - I mean society would be impossible if no one cared about others - So again yes, but there is also the question of why we are so irritated by others.
If we take last night’s example : the so called annoying person was not being annoying on purpose (and not everyone found them to be annoying).
We might look at someone and judge them as whatever (dishonest, annoying) - and whether our interpretation is accurate or not, the problem it seems to me stems from the fact that, in that moment the person is probably not able to act differently (and we are not abe to see the situation differently) - so we should ask questions first and shoot later.
I’m not sure I get it. The only way I see this working is within the process of self itself - meaning a movement totally dependant on recognition and discrimination (ie. good/bad, desire/aversion) - thus a movement away from how I see myself towards how I should be.
Actually I suppose it might work like this : I see someone being horrible, I realise that the same process (self/ego) is at work within me, thus I recoil from the process when I notice it arising within me.
To me, “we are the world” means that virtually all human brains are conditioned to operate within the individual brain’s self-imposed limits, and until/unless the brain awakens to what it is doing, we are separate, isolated entities confined and defined by our own peculiar conditioning.
I am my conditioning, the force of the desire-fear-hope-dread-assumption-suspicion-belief that sidelines awareness and determines behavior. This is what makes me, like everyone else, a prisoner in my own jail. My cell is all that matters when I can’t honestly imagine anything other or more than I can imagine, and I can’t stop imagining.
Fortunately (for I), when I’m dishonest enough to imagine myself free of imagining, I can believe I’m not suffering anymore, and I’m pleasantly oblivious of how unfortunate this is for every other living thing. I am imagination run amok, which means I am more inclined to lose consciousness than to slow down, stop, and find out what life is without imagining.
For myself, I recoil, then wonder why. I have learned to search myself for hidden attributes that resemble that which makes me recoil. The scenario ‘You are the world’ or ‘mirror of relationship’ may be a cognitive error on my part. But I believe it enough to look at myself to see if there is anything there.
If you’re alluding to the gaps between thoughts, that’s not not “intermittent”.
If thought operated with awareness of its inherent limitation, thought would be intermittent - only as needed, practically - and it isn’t operating practically because it’s confused with psychological thought, and there’s no end to psychological thought until it is seen for what it is.
Sometimes on, sometimes off affording awareness, love, intelligence, energy.
This may be true for you, and it may be wishful thinking, imagination, self-deception. Are you open to the latter possibility?
Why if ? If one do see this as true or not is what make the difference between a real change or a useless speculation. According to K., we are the world means that the state of the world is the outward projection of our inner state. We are violent, we are ambitious or whatever, we create such a world. Is it?
Do we are the world at all relate to irritation ? Isn’t irritation the feeling that things doesn’t go the way we want ? A resistance to what is ? Irritation is conflict.
In this particular situation I was experiencing real physical discomfort and was wondering how long I was going to have to listen patiently. My body was having the initial reaction and I was tolerating that ‘conflict’. Fortunately, a participant intervened, and I experienced relief and relaxation.
Although being positive about one’s own conditioned understanding is in no way a demonstration of its exactitude; being negative regarding one’s conditioned experience is actually still a subservience to one’s conditioning.
Either there is a clear realisation (of what self is) or there is not. Positivity and negativity both have their pitfalls .
The Bodhisattva vow is all about the realisation that “separation” and separate “things” are merely models.
nb. regarding Psy and Practical knowledge : it is our relationship to the model that determines whether knowledge is practical or psychological. Is our opinion/knowledge a tool, or do we confuse it with truth (and thus necessity/exigence)?
This is usually the case when we are using methods and data to check ourselves. It is quite normal when we are involved in the perfection of self, whilst using the tools of rationality, analysis and data.
Which data is appropriate? What is the best reaction when confronted with this situation? But what if we consider the opposite point of view? etc
In the hands of a proficient professional, these methods may be useful for the management of suffering over time (aka perfection of self) - but are probably not ideal when used by oneself upon one’s self (IDK just wondering) - eg. Psychoanalysts don’t self diagnose.
In any case, the perfection of self using the tools of the self (which may not be advisable nor possible), is not the same thing as freedom from the self. (some might say that the former is no change at all)