[quote=“tnp, post:38, topic:2538”]
Is one really serious in looking at a question.
Sorry Dan. Questioning the seriousness of others is activity of a active ego. Sorry again for the question.
1 Like
Not always. Sometimes it is obvious how one is (consciously or unconsciously) playing their game, and it’s best to point this out rather than to apologize for “questioning the seriousness of others”. To assume that everyone here is serious is wishful thinking.
One saw in oneself the ego playing its game, hence apology.
The brain is conditioned by all of that and more.
It is conditioned by the education system to compete all the time . You are conditioned by the news every day. So there is no doubt that we are being brain washed and conditioned by the media and politicians every single day.
And unconditioned Brain is an idea coming from the East. Nobody is unconditioned. Some are less conditioned than others.
The East is no worse than the West. The brain’s conditioning is world-wide and our understanding of it is not complete. Much of the brain’s conditioning is useful and necessary, but most of it is based on the belief that humanity is supreme and all other forms of earthly life are inferior, which means we are not subject to what is true because we can choose to believe what is true.
Krishnamurti was acutely aware of the brain’s conditioned response to actuality and the constant conflict between what actually is, and the brain’s reaction to it. The brain is in a state of disorder when there is a conflict between what it wants, likes, prefers, hopes for, etc., and what is actually happening. Awareness of this conflict makes it clear that desire is the problem and must be addressed because desire is enforced by fear, which is violence, and violence is worse than temptation.
The human brain is in a disorderly condition because, being unable to respond to desire intelligently, it descends into desperate or violent reaction. So without intelligence, what is the brain to do? What can the brain do if it hasn’t the intelligence to do what it must to bring an end to its disorderly condition?
You mean what can a person do if hasn’t intelligence…
I say remain with the fact of not having intelligence and see what happens.
The ‘brain’ has to discover, if it feels the need, that which is occupying it and that which is ‘keeping at bay’ the ‘intelligence’ that is perhaps always all around it, that it is immersed in. It has to discover its ‘conditioning’ and effortlessly negate it. To be ‘intelligent’ the brain has to be empty. No attachments, beliefs, fears, desires etc. it probably has to be totally ‘free of the known’ to be what it can be. In order to “participate in the immensity”?
1 Like
Seeing that it has not the intelligence, is an act of intelligence?
But does seeing requires intelligence ?
When I see that I am probably the only animal
that is concerned with aging and with inevitable death it seems like a curse. But looking deeper reveals a gift. The consciousness that lets me be aware of death’s inevitability also makes me question whether something is required of me that I’ve missed? The necessity to go beyond the fear? Not by smothering it in fantastic ‘religious’ beliefs as has been done in the past but by looking at the fear as it arises without any judgement at all, with awareness.( which awareness, K has called “caring”)
Then it’s ‘seen’ that there is actually only this moment and that all of thought’s negative imaginings are the ‘fear’ itself. Thought’s guesses about what will take place in the future, when they will take place, how they will take place except for practical planning, can, depending on their content, trigger the sensation of ‘fear’…the images then are the fear?
1 Like
If by “seeing” you mean direct perception, how can there be intelligence without it?
Gee, how can constant analysis possibly free man…?
No. The brain’s conditioned response to the image is the fear. Or to put it another way, the image is the trigger, the activated bullet is the fear, and the conditioned brain is the gun.
Gee , you have successfully separated yourself.
This terse statement requires some elaboration. What do you mean?
Elaboration is a wastage of time. If someone has built resistance to what you say what place has elaboration?
2 Likes
Is seeing or direct perception is an act of intelligence but converting the perception into knowledge is an act of ego ? - an action that strengthens ego because it gives continuity to ego.
The brain doesn’t know (literally) what it’s seeing until it’s articulated by thought, so it isn’t necessarily an act of ego. For the conditioned brain, however, the articulation by psychological thought is “an action that strengthens ego”.
Why do you assume someone has “built resistance to what you say”?.
I don’t know why you believe the meaning and intent of a terse statement shouldn’t be made clear to a reader that asks for clarity.
You say I have “successfully separated” myself, implying that you have not done the same, thereby making you exceptional, unlike everyone else here who are admittedly conditioned, i.e., separated.
What I understand by this is,when I am looking at something, it is just an observation ( a choiceless observation ) , the moment it is labelled, it becomes known, but ego comes into picture when psychological thought is involved in labelling ( example how ugly he looks) but if practical thought is involved ( example river is flooded) no ego.
Yes, that’s what I think, but my thinking is a fusion of practical and psychological thought, so it’s only speculation.