Those would be confused people.
What they need to understand is this : there will be an outcome, sometimes the outcome can be presented in a simple manner - fight or flight, vegetables or meat, car or bicycle, a reasonably educated president trying their best or a sociopath president.
Firstly, why not?. And secondly, what if awareness does not give the necessary energy to the hand to deposit a piece of paper in a ballot box, so to speak?
There is no transformation either because we don’t see that we are the problem, or we don’t care.
We continue as we do with whatever catches our fancy : debating, philosophy, tiktok, self-improvement etc because we want to.
It’s not true, because we see it, and very clearly. It is as if someone dares to say to us ‘you made a mistake’, or ‘you hurt me’, and we know perfectly well that he is right. Yet our response is to react and say ‘you TOO have made such and such MISTAKES!’ or ‘you HURT me yesterday TOO!’ (capital letters are to point out our emphasis in responding to the other).
In reality we are mere hypocrites pretending not to see what we see ALL the time. To the point of wanting to hide our hypocrisy with philosophical debates to say how much we know about the hypocrisy of others, without ever talking about our own hypocrisy.
Calling myself lazy, hypocrite etc is a form of self-flagellation. Judgement about ourselves makes us feel that ‘I’ am doing something?
It strengthens the false duality of me and myself. And it creates conflict within myself: the ‘me’ disapproving of myself.
Please don’t take this personally, but don’t you think it’s time we put aside the words of the master, listen carefully to what the other says, and comment on what we ourselves observe/weigh for ourselves about ourselves, without the sieve of K’s words intruding?
Seeing, not calling myself lazy, hypocritical, whatever, but seeing that I am actually lazy, hypocritical, whatever, has nothing to do with self-flagellation, nor is it a judgement on myself, it is simply see ‘what is’ about my-self. Nor does it strengthen the false duality between me and my-self, nor does it create a conflict within me (the self judging itself).
So the question then is, why does the self twist Krishnamurti’s words to its own advantage, instead of using them to observe itself seriously? And no, we don’t need Krishnamurti’s words at all to answer that question, we already have his books, videos and audios for anyone who wants to read, watch or listen to them. No, all we need is to let the self speak after asking that question to itself seriously.
Now, can we involve ourselves in the conversation, or is that impossible for the self, which prefers to entertain itself by philosophising, rather than going to the root of its pain without using someone else’s words to define something it doesn’t really know?
Calling myself lazy or realising that I have been hurtful - is not the same as realising that I am the source of suffering.
I’m betting that this realisation is always accompanied by a powerful sense of caring, which both allows the realisation and the effortless acceptance of death
The isolated self, attaching itself to whatever it can, is terrified by the thought of not-existing (thought’s images of death)
So you say they are not the same thing. Well, may I know then in what way you separate the realisation of ‘I am lazy, or hypocritical, or hurtful,… or all at once’ from the realisation of “I am the source of suffering”?
I would like to know, if I have understood you correctly, why, according to you, the realisation that ‘I am hypocritical, lazy, hurtful,… or all at once’ cannot be accompanied by a powerful sense of caring?
And I would also like to know if you think that any of the so-called ‘awakened, realised, or enlightened’ human beings accepted death, or is acceptance still within the realm of thought that knows nothing of acting effortlessly?
And it is impossible to vote as an act out of awarenes of a necessity?.?
In the acceptance of death, my struggle is no longer required, fear can dictate no further action - my pain has no more meaning, is no more.
But I can still recognise what it is to be someone. In fact my brain will still project all the things, including myself - but the fear of death has lost its total authority.
There is a difference between caring about how to fix things, what to do, or what happens next, and refusing to be the cause of suffering.
Impossible? It’s what everyone who thinks they know which candidate is the best for the job, does.
Okay, now let me ask: what is the point of preserving a self that has intellectually accepted death, which not only does not die, but also continues to project itself into life, having to constantly remind itself (which implies effort), that no matter what, it will definitely die one day?
With all due respect, why did you modify my question? Since I didn’t ask ‘why is not accompanied’, but rather ‘why cannot be accompanied’, which is slightly different, i.e.: it’s not a statement, but a question asking the other to elaborate why, according to him, there cannot be a powerful sense of caring seeing our hypocrisy, etc.
On the other hand, let me clarify that when I asked the question about acceptance, I was not specifically referring to the acceptance of death (as you put in brackets), but to any kind of acceptance.
‘there’s a difference’, ‘ caring about’, ‘ fix things’, ‘what to do’, ‘refusing to be’… Do not all these words need an actor? Who or what then is that actor that differentiates/performs all that? The ever lasting self once again?
Intellectually accepting death means having thoughts about accepting death.
An intellectual model about the necessity of accepting death is not the same as accepting death.
Actual acceptance necessitates actual acceptance. We can describe this as an alignment or harmony of thought, emotion, body and experience - but thats just more words to get confused about.
Yes thats what we are discussing : the central actor that cares about what happens, what to do - and the difference between that and - caring about the implications of action from the central authority.
Is there a “central actor” or is there just a “bundle of memories” that react to actuality?
If there is no central intelligent actor, but only the belief and constant reminders that I is real, there is little or no action that isn’t just reflexive reaction.
I say this because there are moments of partial insight when there is appropriate response and not just reaction, but these moments are the exception to the rule.
No one needs to get corrupted about voting in freedom, and that’s the guarantee of a democratic society. In talk 4, Saanen, 1965, Krishnamurti talks about freedom, relationship and what space means in relation to both. Krishnamurti says he’s concerned about the implementation of a good society, and he says: ‘a good society is not possible if there are no good human beings… Goodness flowers in freedom, not in tyranny, not in one-party systems, either political or religious’. This amount of awareness suffices for you to know how to vote.
I don’t know what you mean by this statement.
The human brain is already corrupted by its self-deceiving practice of pretending to be someone/something it is not, and it is not free to do anything other than continue this practice until/unless it awakens to what it is doing.
Hello, Inquiry! It isn’t the human brain that is corrupted, we don’t know about the human brain enough to say that one function of it being corrupt ( if it is corrupt), will affect the whole brain. Then, the rest of what you say is in the light, probably, of your own experience, I don’t agree with your narrative, so just speak for yourself, please. My post is about voting because I think it was Wim above that brought in the issue. For myself, for sure no one will vote in my name, I’m fully aware of what is at stake and I vote in all freedom, no one can coerce me in any way into giving my vote to someone I think is not right for the job.
What is not corrupt about the self-deception of identifying with a false sense of self and security?
Apparently that’s what you believe, Inquiry. Actually, particularly about security, it happens that it is a sense of insecurity that makes people oppose each other and try and find some way of protecting themselves from the environment.