I have accumulated a lifetime of beliefs, prejudices, biases, and opinions that identify me, and all this content has a perception altering effect, so who else can I be? I can imagine myself as something else, something more or something less, but this is just futile escape from the limiting effect of my content.
I think, What you have said is applicable to me also sir.
Yes, that’s the question! What am I, what is the world, what is the relationship between self and other?
I gave you my answer. DId you give it any thought?
what is the relationship between self and other?
Relationship with one’s contents is paramount; one’s authority. All other relationships are subject to it.
Yes and I thought we’re probably talking past each other, and I didn’t want to continue doing that.
You asked, “What am I, what is the world, what is the relationship between self and other?”, and my answer was, “Relationship with one’s contents is paramount; one’s authority. All other relationships are subject to it”.
Maybe I should have put it another way, so here goes: I am incapable of actual relationship because I am completely involved in my relationship with my imagined self. Nothing matters more to me than who I believe I am/should be, and what I believe it takes to sustain this belief. Therefore, every relationship I have outside of this belief is subject to it.
To put it simply, if self-knowledge is knowing how many ways I can be mistaken, deluded, deceived, biased, prejudiced, manipulated, tempted, seduced, threatened, frightened, stunned, confused, confounded, etc., maintaining a self-image means being too deficient in self-knowledge to be capable of real relationship with anyone.
It’s what one does not know about having/being a self that enables and perpetuates the practice.
Hello Inquiry - Isn’t this explanation you have offered the knowledge or content “speaking.” When you say “I” are you referring to the content of consciousness, or the human being. If you mean the ‘human being’, isn’t a human being capable of observation without interpretation, without the word? Isn’t a human being capable of relationship without the imagery of separation? It seems rather effortless, if a person is interested in exploring this possibility.
**Isn’t this statement, “how many ways I can be mistaken,” a thought interpretation implying that this ‘I’ is something separate from the reactions? Is there an ‘I’ that is deluded or deceived, or is it the content that is deluded, caught in the illusion of a ‘me’ doing something “wrong.”
2 Likes
If a human being is “capable of observation without interpretation”, would that human being know it had that capability? Wouldn’t that capability bring confidence and a sense of being exceptional? If I felt I had that capability, I wouldn’t trust that feeling or my supposedly uninterpreted observation.
Isn’t this statement, “how many ways I can be mistaken,” a thought interpretation implying that this ‘I’ is something separate from the reactions? Is there an ‘I’ that is deluded or deceived, or is it the content that is deluded, caught in the illusion of a ‘me’ doing something “wrong.”
The language is misleading, There is no separation between the content and the “I”. The content is a body of delusory notions, beliefs, prejudices, biases, unexamined assumptions, and the illusion of itself as a person referring to itself as “I” and “me”; the content personified. But knowing this makes no difference. Apparently, it’s not enough to know, to acknowledge, that the thinker is the thought, as every K-follower knows.
**I think basically most every human could discover that they have this capacity to observe, without the word. But given the nature of human conditioning, there’s always a ‘possibility’ that a person could react in the manner you suggest. But they could also see that every other human has this same capacity to observe, to be aware. At least they wouldn’t be caught in the false idea that they have no capacity to observe the nature of the conditioning.
**That’s what I’m questioning…isn’t this language misleading? Why present it as a ‘problem’ that ‘I’ have? Isn’t self-knowledge actually about observing ourselves in relationship, and learning (seeing/observing) about what makes us act in the manner we do? What is going on in us that creates anger, fear, deception, bias etc? What makes humanity behave so disorderly? A humanity that we’re all part of. What’s the nature of the conditioning? Can we observe it together rather than repeating this conditioned habit of presenting it as “me being deficient?” Then it’s something I need to ‘become’ more efficient at. Nobody failed to be more efficient at self-knowledge, did they? Was there really an ‘I’ that failed to be more efficient? Wouldn’t this suggestion also be misleading?
These are just questions.
1 Like
What do you mean by “the nature of their conditioning”? I can observe my conditioned response, but this doesn’t change anything. It only reveals how conditioned I am. I don’t know that it’s a “false idea” that I have no capacity to observe what is actual - it’s a fact. Are you an exception?
What is the “nature” of any conditioning? Take Pavlov’s dogs, for instance. Conditioned response is reacting reflexively to something (the sound of a bell) associated with something significant (food) rather than responding intelligently to the signified thing itself.
Can we observe it together rather than repeating this conditioned habit of presenting it as “me being deficient?”
Why “together”? We’re talking about a disorder of the brain. Each of our brains is conditioned to respond reflexively to triggers (like Pavlov’s dogs), instead of responding intelligently to actualities. If one brain can see itself doing this constantly, there is awareness of its disorder. Whether the brain needs to be doing this with other like-minded brains is a matter of opinion. One really can’t say until observation, direct-perception is actual and not just what K’s teaching has conditioned us to think.
**The ‘I’ cannot observe the conditioning. The ‘I’ is thought…the fictional “observer.” This idea, in thought, that ‘I’ am going to “observe my thoughts,” is thinking, not observation. The observation of what is occurring in relationship is not observation if it’s being interpreted through the ‘observer-thought-structure’. Naturally nothing changes when a person thinks they’re “observing,” when it’s really analyzing or interpreting. What I am has no bearing on whether something is false or not. That’s just one of the ways thought distracts attention away from observing and seeing.
By ‘nature’ of the conditioning I mean seeing it as it actually is, versus evaluating it…making conclusions about it.
1 Like
**I would describe it as ‘thought imagery’ which is being confused for an actuality. “Confusing the word for the thing.”
**Because we’re humanity, not a bunch of separate “me’s” And I’m referring to inquiring together. There’s obviously no requirement to do it together, but the disorder isn’t restricted to any particular “individual.” If only you and I “transform,” how much significance is that?
K: The purpose of our inquiry, into all of this, is to bring about a good society , in which we human beings can live happily, without fear, without conflict, without all of the striving, struggling, all the brutality, and all of the rest of it. That is the intention of inquiry - Saanen 1979 - In Total Silence the mind comes upon the Eternal
According to K, no one has done it, so it would be tremendously significant if someone transformed.
**And apparently many people have taken their ‘interpretation’ of this line as the “truth.” I saved a couple of quotes related to this quote to share with people who seem stuck on the assumption that K was implying he could have possibly known that no single person, worldwide, could have transformed. Not to mention that this line was spoken nearly 40 years ago. What’s happened since then??? Here’s the two quotes I saved:
Here’s an explanation from Mark Lee’s first book, a person who was actually there:
“Several times Krishnamurti met with groups made up of a few trustees, who stood at the foot of his bed. There were publications and organizational issues to talk about. Some of the meetings were tape-recorded by Scott Forbes. At one of those gatherings, Krishnamurti said: No one has understood the teachings…" The seven of us present there conferred later and agreed he was talking about us rather than the whole of humankind in a regretful dismissal of his life’s work. He had made this pronouncement before, but obviously he could not have known whether or not among the millions who read or heard the Teachings there was even one person who understood them.”
And here is a quote that Michael Krohnen, K’s Ojai chef, pointed me to:
John E. Coleman: Krishnamurti himself, when we met again four years later, showed me in simple terms how he saw this happening: - The Quiet Mind
(K) “Maybe, one day, while I am delivering one of my talks in a tent or shelter, it will be raining outside and someone walking down the street, someone who has never heard of me, will walk into a tent to get out of the rain. Perhaps in such a situation of spontaneity that man will understand what I am saying.”
**Given that the core of K’s message was ‘radical transformation’, it would seem to reflect a lack of seriousness if any reader adopts a conclusion that transformation can’t occur. I suspect K would have said, “Don’t bother if you aren’t serious.” I suggest this due to K often saying things like this:
K: I hope you are not merely listening to words , because then they will be another distraction, a waste of time. - On Love and Loneliness
**But again, this is just a distraction from looking at the points being considered. It has no bearing on whatever we explore together. It’s an example of how belief obstructs inquiry.
K: Belief is a word, a thought, and this is not the thing, any more than your name is actually you.
Belief like any other ideal is an escape from “what is”. - The Urgency of Change
1 Like
Before adopting the conclusion that I lack “seriousness” you might have inquired as to whether I was saying that “transformation can’t occur”.
I don’t know of anyone interested in the teachings who doubts that transformation can occur, but because we know of those who believe they have transformed, and are clearly delusional, we know that one is more likely to imagine oneself or another transformed, because seeing that one or another has transformed is impossible for the conditioned mind which is incapable of direct perception.
**Again, isn’t this simply a distraction from addressing the points being considered? What actual relevance does it have to what someone may be pointing to? Are ‘we’ serious about inquiring, or more interested in analyzing the other person? Isn’t this an example of what we call “an ego reaction?” “Who does this other person think they are, someone better than me?”
I asked a question, “If only you and I “transform,” how much significance is that?” Was there a ‘listening’ to the question? Does the response: “According to K, no one has done it,” address the question?
Now here I’d like to mention that email messages, like forums generally involve, tend to have an “assertive tone” to them, and if we were face-to-face, and you got to know me personally, you would realize that I’m not trying to prove anything, and I’m simply “inquiring” with you, as a fellow human who shares an interest in K’s teachings. Given that it’s doubtful that your birth name was “Inquiry,” I’m assuming this indicates that you have an interest in the inquiry process. Well, I also share this interest. When I asked the question of “How much significance it that,” it was a sincere question. It wasn’t implying that anyone had transformed. It was simply pointing to what appears to be a fact, namely, that nothing much will change if only one or two humans transform. Why else did K spend 60 years pointing it out to thousands of people if it was sufficient that he had transformed?
Again, each of these points or questions are offered in the spirit of “cooperative inquiry.” “Looking together as friends, as fellow humans.” We aren’t adversaries, an “imagined other,” we’re humanity. And the question, it seems, is: Are we serious? Do we see the urgency of change? Can we all look together without the distraction of analyzing each other?
1 Like
How would you or I know “how much significance” it is seeing as how neither of us has transformed?
nothing much will change if only one or two humans transform.
Do you know this for a fact?
Can we all look together without the distraction of analyzing each other?
You sound a lot like Paul Dimmock. Why is that?
‘Observation’. How significant is it if one or two people care for the environment, versus,
the majority of the society caring for the environment? Isn’t the difference rather obvious? Is a different society ever possible if only a few change?
K: The purpose of our inquiry, into all of this, is to bring about a good society , in which we human beings can live happily, without fear, without conflict, without all of the striving, struggling, all the brutality, and all of the rest of it. That is the intention of inquiry - Saanen 1979 - In Total Silence the mind comes upon the Eternal
Why was K inquiring with his fellow humans, exploring this possibility of a different society for over fifty years? Was it because he felt it was significant enough if only he changed?
Isn’t this quite easy to see?
You’ll have to answer that one. I don’t really have any interest in comparing one human being to another. Making images of each other, and confusing the image for the actual, seems to be at the root of the confusion in thought.
2 Likes
I don’t know, and neither do you, but you assume it would make an insignificant difference.
Is a different society ever possible if only a few change?
Invariably, social change begins when :“only a few change”, or even just one person changes. The effect of one individual’s transformation begins a social revolution. A significant amount of people are drawn to one who has changed from being a believer to being free, i.e., beyond belief.
Why was K inquiring with his fellow humans, exploring this possibility of a different society for over fifty years? Was it because he felt it was significant enough if only he changed?
He felt it was significant enough for him to speak up as a human being free from what holds everyone else chained to the same master: the power of thought to distract and distort attention.