The human brain knows it is conditioned to deceive itself because the evidence is undeniable. Acknowledging this evidence is one thing, but if the brain is no more aware of being deceitful than it ever was, it’s just knowledge. The brain now knows it is up to no good, but what good does that knowledge do if the brain is no better off for knowing it?
What is the brain to do when it knows it is deceitful and dishonest, and can’t be trusted to do anything more than gather and consider what the empirical evidence indicates? It’s one thing to know I’m corrupt, but am I good only for gathering and considering evidence? Can I at least cease and desist from my deceitful, duplicitous, dishonest ways?
May I ask if you use the words ‘know’, ‘knowledge’ instead of ‘see/realise’ on purpose in your reasoning? Because if we use ‘see/realise’ instead of ‘know’ in everything you have written, the meaning changes radically and the questions would have a different depth. Unless, of course, you think that the brain cannot see anything, but only know.
Because we don’t actually “see/realize” the brain’s conditioned response…we see only the evidence of its effect retrospectively.
Unless, of course, you think that the brain cannot see anything, but only know.
Obviously, the conditioned brain can see everything that doesn’t conflict with its beliefs about what should/should-not-be, and reacts to what does conflict with its beliefs by distorting, denying, dismissing, etc.
The brain is conditioned to support the lies (beliefs) it holds, or tells itself in the moment.
Let me ask… is this the answer of an actual observation of the thing, or is it the answer of the knowledge accumulated by thought after having read Krishnamurti?
“Actual observation” of the evidence of the brain’s deception - not observation of the actual deception. I don’t know if Krishnamurti ever talked about this, though Bohm did speak of the brain’s sleight of hand.
Evidence of duality in self observation? Saying one thing and meaning another is evidence? Bigotry is evidence? Beliefs are evidence? i am a pure racist or believer in a religion or a nation is evidence? I am addicted to smoking, alcohol, and hard drugs is evidence if I am? . So if I see my conflicted self consciousness is divided? I do not need anyone to see it for me and I do not need to see anyone else’s to know we are similar human beings? We are not superior human beings but human beings interested in inquiring into our own self consciousness and self inquiry. What do you think? What is proof except knowing, or seeing the facts about ourselves earnestly and honestly not confessing to the world like pious Christians but knowing ourselves?
No. The brain doesn’t know it is conditioned. If it knows that then it must be free of conditioning.
Inquiry, why do you keep saying , ‘brain sees, or brain doesn’t see etc’? We don’t know about any brain. We didn’t split open the skull. We say this from knowledge.
Just say we or I don’t understand or understand & then we can proceed to see what is involved in saying that. Who that ‘we’ or ‘I’ is etc. Whether that is understanding or knowledge or whatever that is etc.
The brain that is interested in its conditioning is aware of its conditioning just as someone under the influence of alcohol knows they’re drunk, and can’t do anything about it but try to act sober.
We look around and see what is happening in the world…and what has happened. We see something seems wrong with us and have devised many methods to ‘become’ better, different etc. But nothing essentially changes. What we are seems unsustainable for the future though i.e. the notion of ‘individuality’ leading to more competition, greed, pollution, selfishness, violence. We are conditioned to think of ourselves as individuals. We can see the danger in that but seeing that condition, does not change it. Bohm has called it and our other conditions, ‘reflexes’ …all part of a ‘system of thought’. Insight can reveal them but the revelation doesn’t necessarily dissolve them. K. has said in this regard, that “the highest form of intelligence is to see oneself without judgement”. Is he pointing out the ‘ignorance’ of self-improvement? The futility of it? Of the conditioned system trying to bring radical change about within itself, without realizing that it IS itself the conditioning?
K. “Freedom is born with the perception that freedom is essential”
No sir. Once you learn fire burns you don’t put your finger in fire anymore unless you are neurotic.
When you say the brain is aware it is some intellectual grasping only. Not actual seeing.
No sir. Insight has its own inherent action. Once something is seen, there is action simulationsly. Its not that you think & act according to that insight. Then you haven’t seen.
Of course we’re ‘neurotic’, thats why we continue to live in fear, loneliness, believing in our individuality…we ‘see’ that thought is the cause but seeing does not bring thought to an end. The problem is that the movement of thinking is considered to be different than the movement of the body…we are aware of one but not the other, even though they are both part of the same ‘system’? Movement of the body can be controlled by the brain’s awareness of all its parts but not so it seems with the movement of thought, it ‘runs on’.
Isn’t that why K asked: Can thought be aware of itself? So the awareness of its moving is the same as the awareness of the movement of these fingers on the keyboard?
Sir, we are not neurotic to the point of being deranged. I mean we are not on medication or in some mental asylum.
Can thought be aware of itself? Either thought separates itself as an observer & looks or be aware of itself in which the observer is the observed.
If thought separates then its just interpreting- conditioning comes into play. Observing without an observer is the mirror syndrome. Everything is just seen as it takes place- all judgement, evaluation etc., is cut off. That is thought being aware of itself.
It is possible sir. ‘What is’ is already there. We just have to turn our gaze to it.