And it’s that same sense of insecurity that drives you and I and perhaps everyone else to believe we are who/what we think we are.
I don’t see that a sense of insecurity makes me believe I am this or that! All it does is make me aware that I am vulnerable, that’s all. Anyway, Inquiry, there is no self-deception here at all, contrary to what you were suggesting.
Who, what, is this “me”? How do you know it isn’t an illusion, something all in your mind?
What happens to this me when no one else supports or acknowledges its alleged existence? Isn’t it just a voice reminding you of who you are, and how you’re not this or that, etc.?
1 Like
I’m afraid I don’t engage in delusional discourse. Why should I doubt, that is, according to you, that I am an illusion? You’re just contradicting yourself, because just here on this forum you keep writing and waiting for other people to read what you have written and hopefully answer back. Are all these different people illusions? Krishnamurti speaks all the time of relationship, doesn’t he? He says to live is to relate, doesn’t he? To relate implies more than one, it can’t be any other way. You may not know who or what you are, but you are, no point in denying it. I’m also sure that Krishnamurti wasn’t an illusion.
Actual people are not illusions, but who each one of them thinks they are is imagined, i.e., illusory.
You may not know who or what you are, but you are, no point in denying it.
We are all actual human beings, but, as you know, we have images of ourselves and others, and images are illusions. We imagine who we are and who others are because we are more committed to what we can believe is true than to finding out what is actually false.
No, Inquiry, images are images and illusions are illusions, they are not synonymous. An image may become an illusion, that’s it. Images are natural processes brought about by our experience of the world and they happen automatically so that we can function efficiently. We may build images out of our imagination also, but that is another thing. One has to be able to tell an image of one sort from the other of the other sort, that’s what a serious balanced person does, I think.
Just as there is practical thought and psychological thought, there are practical images and psychological images. The self image is psychological, as images of others can also be.
No, Inquiry. My image of myself comes about the same way the image of others does. Maybe some people are not so aware of their own image as they are of that of other people, that comes with introspection. Images can be fuzzy or precise depending on the experience. Then, yes, people can work on these images by means of their imagination and create corresponding images which distort the original ones and are the cause of parallel realities. Imagination can do many things, one has to be aware of what it is doing, distinguish true from virtual, one needs lucidity, that is all.
And you feel you have lucidity? Is it possible to be lucid and self-centered? Or are you not self-centered?
Well, Inquiry, we were dealing with the fact that the images which populate our minds may have different origins. Lucidity to distinguish one kind from the other is necessary, This happens from moment to moment, it isn’t whether one is lucid or self-centered. We are moving anyway.
You moved us to lucidity…I just went from there.
it isn’t whether one is lucid or self-centered.
Is the conditioned brain not self-centered?
This happens from moment to moment,
It goes without saying that everything happens from moment to moment, but my question to you is, Are you not self-centered?
I know that was your question. When I said ‘from moment to moment’ I meant one must question from moment to moment whether one is being informed by lucidity or by selfcentredness. One is not always lucid or always selfcentred.
When the conditioned brain questions itself, its answer is in accord with its beliefs and conclusions, be they hidden or not.
You won’t admit to being self-centered because you believe you know how to be selfless.
Your narrative doesn’t change, how sad! It’s not even a mantra, it’s more like some sort of blues. But as I said before, we are all moving one way or the other. Have a good day, Inquiry!
How, when you can’t admit to being self-centered, can you consider yourself serious about what Krishnamurti said and wrote?
You distort what is said, I didn’t say I’m not selfcentred, I said one can be lucid sometimes and selfcentred sometimes. I don’t have to tell you anything about myself, I haven’t asked you anything about yourself, only about one or two of your comments.
If you can be selfless sometimes and self-centered at other times, go back and forth between the two, are you gradually becoming more selfless or gradually more self-centered?
If a selfless brain can be a self-centered brain, its putting on an act, and can’t be taken seriously. And if a self-centered brain can be a selfless brain sometimes, it’s also putting on an act.
Neither one can be the other without making a mockery of the other. Sounds like fun.
Is this a judgment of the other based on the self not getting to hear from the other what it would like to hear to confirm that it is right and the other is wrong?
When one has an insight into “what is” (however brief it may be), is one at that moment selfless, or self-centered?
No. It’s a question.
When one has an insight into “what is” (however brief it may be), is one at that moment selfless, or self-centered?
We don’t know why the conditioned brain has a lapse that allows for a brief partial insight, but we know it isn’t by choice or by an act of will. It just happens.
Jess said, “one can be lucid sometimes and selfcentred sometimes”, which can be interpreted any way you choose. But it sounds to me he was saying he could be as free of or as bound by his conditioning as he chooses to be.
You should ask Jess what he meant by what he said.