I recently listened to a group discussion Krishnamurti held in Malibu in the seventies, in which he said something to the effect that for the brain to awaken to its full potential it must have complete security. He didn’t elaborate on this, however, and because it wasn’t clear (to me) what he meant by the statement, I contacted someone at the KFA, but the person I discussed it with was as clueless as I was.
I’d like to hear what others may have to say about what K meant when he said this.
That is a stumper.
Doesn’t K say elsewhere that there is no such thing as security? Security depends on things staying the same and life is in constant motion. One would have to agile enough to roll with the punches life doles out.
Could he mean by this that the brain has to understand that depending on anything inevitably will lead to insecurity. Therefore the only sure way to be secure is depend on nothing.
K saying though the brain must have security sounds like that it is an involuntary action, some inherent quality built into brain function – sort of like we must breathe or something like that.
This complete ‘security’, as I see what he meant here , was not the security brought about by attachment, by belief, by conclusions, ideals, etc. but the security that can only be ‘complete’, when nothing can be threatened or lost. When there is nothing to defend. This connects for me with what another of his statements was pointing at: " A confident man is a dead human being". For the brain to ‘blossom’, it can’t be ‘tethered’ to anything of the past. Which is to say that for the brain to “awaken to its full potential”, it must be ‘free from the known’.
What K meant and what K said are two different things. It’s unfortunate that we are not allowed to interpret what K said in order to deduce what he meant. If I am allowed to “read between the lines”, then I can offer my understanding of K’s statement the meaning of which you want to get at.
The brain, as we know it, is a biological organ of the body. Security, of the kind K was talking about, has nothing to do with the body. The body could care less if you can’t pay the rent, or if it is dying from cancer, or if mankind comes to an end tomorrow. If you agree with my deduction, then the statement " The Brain Must Have Complete Security" makes no sense.
It makes no sense relative to what K said about psychological security, i.e., the illusion of security fashioned by thought. But he did say it, and if I’m not mistaken, on more than one occasion. It struck me that no one in that discussion asked him to explain what he meant. When I find it on youtube I’ll provide the link.
As I recall, he was talking about fear and how the distortion and confusion it engenders has a disabling effect.
Who is not allowing you to do that?
I don’t know if you read my interpretation of what he meant when he said that. It’s very clear to me. The brain is not the pancreas or the liver or the heart. Why bring those in? The brain with thought has created the ‘self’, the ‘you’, the ‘me’ , the ‘thinker’, etc.with all the ‘baggage’ that comes with it. It can never be completely secure until it sees the mis-step of having gone down that road. The ‘I’ doesn’t exist yet the brain has built a “wall” around it to protect it, you, me. The wall is a wall of fear. The ‘I’ is a product of fear. It must be affirmed, amused, protected, entertained, etc. And that was the ‘wrong turn’ and the brain can never be completely secure until it moves in a totally different direction. Do you see what I mean?
K was explicit about anyone interpreting him. He forbade it. It’s all recorded there during his final days. Check with the KFA.
As for the brain creating the self, this is the “Hard Problem” confronting the scientific community. The jury is still out on the mind/body debate. In this regard, I don’t see what you mean.
When there is no division what so ever, there is no insecurity.
Yes…No “division” (aka the 'self) and also no psychological ‘desire’, right? If there is a shred of desire whether to be a ‘somebody’ or to be ‘enlightened’, etc. that brings with it the fear, anxiety, (insecurity) of not attaining the ‘goal’. Also ‘desire’ is ‘time’, the time to get from what i am, to what I want to be. For me K. is pointing at a necessary ‘emptiness’ in the psyche for the brain to realize its potential. "where the self is, the ‘other’ is not. " Is it the “evil” self that keeps Man from ‘flowering’?
That may be true, but I don’t know. Do you know actually know this or are you speaking from your knowledge of the teaching?
That is not necessary. K did say “The Brain Must have Complete Security” countless times and they are all recorded in his talks and books. I am not disputing K’s pointing to psychological security. I don’t think the biological brain has anything to do with it even though he said “brain”.
K was explicit about anyone interpreting him. He forbade it. It’s all recorded there during his final days. Check with the KFA.
As for the brain creating the self, this is the “Hard Problem” confronting the scientific community. The jury is still out on the mind/body debate. In this regard, I don’t see what you mean.
He also said we should tear apart the teachings seeing that for all we know “poor chap, he might be crazy”.
I think it is very easy to take that statement about intrepreting out of context. I am pretty sure he would not be against us as individuals trying to discuss and yes interpret what his teaching is all about — his concern was more a warning about someone or some institution - including the foundations - setting themselves up as an “authority” saying they have realized what K is talking about and then giving their interpretation as the same as K. In other words, he wanted to make sure there would be only one source of truth for dissemination purposes.
Agreed. That had to do with the writings not for discussion.
Exactly. K is the only source. No interpretation. And if you do interpret, then it has nothing to do with K and it’s entirely your take. In which case, it would be no different from listening to Deepak Chopra or Eckhart Tolle expounding on whatever he is expounding on.
Yet you say when K. said the “The Brain Must have Complete Security” …you say "I don’t think the biological brain has anything to do with it even though he said “brain”. So what’s your interpretation of ‘brain’?
What if we put K. aside for a while and examine ourselves, daily, inwardly and outwordly. Don’t we all the time look for security? Security in money, security in one person, security in ideas or in a hope, in a project. And did you not ever experience the sense of insecurity (or anxiety) which overwhelm us when our hopes or projects fail? To me the statement " the brain must have security" is self-evident, or self-explanatory. So, my question to you is, why you don’t find it self-evident?
I would take it to mean as self-knowing is in place so that the ground is fertile for right thinking as Paul puts it in another thread. In that process of self-knowing is gathered it’s very place in the scheme of things.
Since K didn’t make it clear what he meant, we can only speculate. Maybe, as you say, the brain has complete security when able to operate in whichever modal network is most appropriate to the situation. Like you, I’m just guessing.