I don’t see anything self-evident about the statement because it flies in the face of everything he said about security. To be mortal is to be insecure, so what kind of security was he referring to? Why didn’t he elaborate and make it clear? Why didn’t anyone present at that discussion ask him what he meant?
If you study seruously K. you will notice that K. has no method in explaining things. He never planned beforehand what he had to say, so his talks were completely spontaneous and without following a common logic as we are used to have when for instance we study science or history. There is no pattern of cause and effect in K.'s teachings, there no do-this-and-you-will get-that. Everything is at a intuitive level and require an intuitive understanding.
Maybe you can find a further elaboration of this topic in another talk, in another place, 10 years later or 10 years earlier, but if you are looking for rational explanations you will always be disappointed with K.
If nobody present at the discussione asked him what he meant probabily is because they found it self-evident, just like myself. So let me ask you once again: why you don’t find it self-evident? Is it because you don’t know yourself? Because you are not aware of your own feelings and thought?
It’s you that is is important, your life, your inner world, not K., not his teachings. He left us alone after having thrown a pebble in the pond. “Now the ball is in your court” (Tennis) he used to say. Why don’t you gather that ball? You want a predigested knowledge and solution? K. never gave solutions, he only asked questions. Ask yourself questions about the things you think are important and you will see that the answers will come.
I think I ought to talk about this after having clarified the matter in my previous post.
One needs to have a comprehensive view of K.s teaching then perhaps we will see the link with all the different braches or topics of his teaching. As he often said, one problem is related to all the other ones, so in dealing with one problem we will find the connection with other aspects.
To make it short: K. has always stated that we can find complete security only in intelligence and love, and of course that implies the death of the self and the bypassing of thought. He ended all his talks talking about intelligence and love (the two go together) and also he talked about meditation at the end of his talks. If you follow one of his series of 6-7 talks for instance in Saanen you may get a comprehensive view of what he meant. But that does not mean that he explained things the way we like. He only threw a small or big pebble (according to our receptivity) in the pond of our mind.
Self-knowledge and awareness of one’s feelings and thoughts does not bring “complete security”. That much is self-evident. If you feel secure for having self-knowledge and self-awareness, you might want to ask yourself why, because the mind that is aware of its thoughts and feelings is no more secure than the delusional mind. You may find it more comforting and you may take pride in it, but self-knowledge does not make you any more secure than those lacking it.
We are all subject to “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”, so there is no security for anyone. But if, as K implied, the brain can have “complete security”, it can’t be literal security. It has to be metaphorical or spiritual security, but he didn’t say what he meant. If you think you know what he meant, you may be mistaken. Anyone with a modicum of self-knowledge knows that certainty is foolishness. One can always be mistaken.
That’s the reason K differentiated between knowing and knowledge, to bring the effect that every conclusion could be subjected to examination and therefore there is an attitude of openness to insecurity. In deepening awareness, there is continual splitting and distancing from thought as a movement of matter, a process of refinement ongoing. For that reason, there is no point in correlating his observations to that of an effect of operating in different brain networks. I would refrain from such attempts to pin his statements down.
I was not interpreting K but clearly pointed out that it was my take on what he said. This was what I said: “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.” Please let me know if you need further clarification.
The brain, in biological terms, is an organ of the body. There are people who believe that it is the seat of consciousness, that it is where thought comes from. This is not settled science because there is no proof and that is why we have what is called the “Hard Problem of Consciousness”.
K used the word “brain”. What other word could he have used to explain to folks who believed that consciousness, psyche, thoughts, sense of self, etc. - comes from the brain? I don’t believe that the brain creates thought and has nothing to do with consciousness. It would have been easier for K to have had a dialogue with me than with David Bohm.
Sorry but you misunderstood me. I didn’t mean that self-awareness brings “complete security” -. I said: Why you don’t find it self-evident? (the reference was to the initial discussion about “the brain must have security”) In my reply to Emil I asked: “Don’t we all the time look for security?” So, if you know yourself you know that your mind requires security, it’s something so obvious!
And you quoted my sentence: “To me the statement “the brain must have security” is self-evident”. So what you needed was just to read what you had quoted.
“To be mortal is to be insecure” yes, and are you at easy with that? Have you renounced to find security and feel comfortable in insecurity? If you are then K.'s teaching will have no value for you. No need to spend time in partecipating to this forum.
Why make a statement if its meaning can’t be pinned down? Did K want for his listeners to wonder what he meant and try to work it out for themselves? Or did he speak of things they could grasp and understand, always willing and able to make his meaning clear? Everyone familiar with K’s teaching has either signed on to the authorized version of what K was saying, made up their own version, or (god forbid) is trying to pin the teaching down to what it is and is not saying. I correlate K’s “observations to that of an effect of operating in different brain networks” because of Occam’s Razor. Why do you refrain from trying to bring clarity to K’s teaching?
In this context, what does “security” mean? It isn’t clear how you’re using the word.
Can you explain why you hold this belief?
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’
Right, no desire, desire is time, etc. But is it your reality, or just what K said about reality? I ask because K said comprehensible things like this that we agree with and repeat to each other, but if you were to say it’s all real for you; that you’re not just parroting it, but living it, what kind of response would you get?
I was kind of perplex in regard of your quote. Yes, what does this quote means exaclty; what K. was trying to convey? And then it came to me that the sentence was without context. What one call K.'s teaching is very vast and complex. So I did a little search to find some context and found this on the web from Tradition and Revolution:
quote : Look Sir, the brain cannot function healthily, sanely, if it is not completely secure. Security means order. Without order the brain cannot function, it becomes neurotic. Like a child it needs complete security. When the child is secure, feels at home, it is not frightened, then it grows up as a marvellous human being.
So the brain needs security and it has found security in knowledge. That is the only thing it can be secure in - experience as knowledge which acts as the future guide. So it needs security and it finds it in knowledge, in belief, in family. (end of quote).
J. Krishnamurti Tradition and Revolution Dialogue 14 Madras 5th January `Conflict and consciousness’
Hope it can bring some light about what K. try to convey.
I don’t know. But I saw today that what cripples the brain / mind is ‘fear’. Fear keeps the brain in its place. What is the origin of fear? It is ‘thought’ itself, isn’t it? “Thought is fear”. That is why K. has said, that there must be an end to it. As long as this ‘psychological thought’ is in operation, there can be no security for the brain. It conjures up images of the past and images of the ‘future’…being bound in ‘time’, it is fraught with ‘insecurity’. That movement has to end.
It’s not a belief. Asserting that thought comes from the brain IS a belief.
Of course it’s my reality…what do you mean "what kind of response would you get? From who? Isn’t any of this “real” for you? What do you mean when you say “real”?..Certifiable?.. By who?..
It’s not a belief. Asserting that thought comes from the brain IS a belief.
(I am still unfamiliar with replying. Sorry.)
Richard that’s the security of the immature brain as i see it…in order to develop to its potential, it has to go beyond the security necessary for the child brain, and drop those attachments to knowledge, belief and family, doesn’t it?
Exactly Dan. I was hoping you would come to it. I’ve end the quote abruptly in a way, but what he is saying is the plain truth of the matter. In fact the mind found and find security in nationalist and beleives , family and so on which bring disaster; which are illusions of security, So I’ll leave another part of this discussion with Pupul which is very long; simple and complex.
Quote: Krishnamurti: It ( the mind-brain) says do not invent beliefs or ideas for in them there is no security at all. Wipe them out because they are illusory. Therefore it is completely secure; not in anything, but in itself it is secure. Before it sought security through something - through family, through god, egotism, competition, through seeking. Security through something is the greatest insecurity. It discards that. Therefore it can perceive. Because it has no illusions, motives, formulas, it can perceive. Because it does not seek any security, it is completely secure. The mind is then free of illusions; illusion not in the sense of Sankara, but just the illusion that I will find security in family, in God, in knowledge which is the past. (end of quote, Conflict and consciousness)
Thankyou for finding the K quote. His analogy gives us a clue as to what he meant, and he did say it had to do with “order”, but that’s still too vague for me. I"m glad you’re satisfied with your conclusion.
First of all, I already explained in my reply to Emil (which you should have read) what the sentence “the brain must have security” meant. I cannot understand why you ask what security means “in this context”. The context we are talking about is our life. You don’t know what security in life means? How old are you?
Here are some definitions of security I took from English dictionary:
- freedom from danger, risk, etc.; safety: (exaample) Job security was an important issue.
- freedom from care, anxiety, or doubt.
- something that protects; defense.
- freedom from financial cares:
Does that make sense to you?