Because “I” was afraid of being lonely. So “I” accepted each and every conditioning because in return “I” received a reward. Otherwise “I” only received punishment and more loneliness.
Yes, “I” made a promise to myself to never disappoint anyone again from the moment “I” suffered the consequences of wanting to be myself, asking seriously “why?” every time “I” didn’t understand.
Who are you asking this to?
I am asking humanity, anywhere there may be.
Is our conditioning the conditioning of humanity?
Have you asked your parents, your childhood teachers, your classmates, your adult co-workers, your boss, your children, your wife/husband, your girlfriend/boyfriend, your neighbour, the stranger walking down the street?
And if you have asked that question to a humanity that is 24/7/365 by your side, what was/is their answer if I may ask?
Can we look at this sentence for a moment?
When someone says this, is it because he has seen it, which would imply that he is no longer looking at the other through an image, or is it simply a thought that prevents him from seeing, thus perpetuating the image he has of the other?
Seeing that the brain is filled with the ‘smog’ of the past does not clear the smog. We are so accustomed to the way we perceive that we consider it normal. The brain carries the past with it because thousands of years of conditioning have kept it from changing this direction. Even seeing how bloodthirsty, cruel, greedy, fearful I am has not been sufficient to change my direction. I continue to see myself as an individual among individuals. Some of us here are looking into whether a radical change is possible.
Whether it is or not may depend on whether the conditioning can be seen, not trying to change it, or go beyond it but just to see clearly that it is what we are.
Do you mean to say here that “thinking that the brain is filled with the ‘smog’ of the past does not clear the ‘smog’”? If it is so i do totally agree with you. Otherwise ‘seeing it’ does clear the ‘smog’. And so does “seeing how bloodthirsty, cruel, greedy and fearful I am”.
See the reply to @Jobuys I just wrote to him/her in this thread, related to what we’re talking about here.
We’re looking into the possibility that there is something in us that is not conditioned. If there is, there is the possibility of freedom, if not as Bohm said, “we are stuck”.
Absolutely! Now, is there such a possibility? Or after having listened to Krishnamurti talking about conditioning, have we locked ourselves in the prison of thought, self-conditioning ourselves that it is impossible for there to be something in us that can break the enchantment of our conditioning?
No Bohm was only warning as I read it, that saying there was an unconditioned part , that that would become part of the conditioned system… that we had to leave it as only a possibility. There may or may not be some part of the brain that has not been conditioned?
The conditioned image of freedom is another form of conditioning.
Are we willing to put aside what we have heard from Krishnamurti or someone else on the subject, and enter into it without grasping at any concept? On the other hand, I would like to ask you… Have you ever cried listening to/reading Krishnamurti? If so, what was the cause?
No
(Twenty some characters)
No to both questions, or just the second one?
the second one …
[/quote]
If you believe thought is creative not just inventive or calculative? Where do you think insights and perceptions come from? When we talk about seeing the source of thought are we talking about the eyeballs seeing or awareness seeing? Is thought a higher tool or function than universal awareness in all life forms or has ideological invented non secular thought, proven itself to be superior to awareness?
I’m sorry, it’s not clear to me what you are saying.
You can’t compare awareness with thought because awareness isn’t a tool or a function of the brain.
Sorry I am not comparing one is a tool, the other is not, the tool concludes awareness does not. .
All that which we ordinarily refer to as conditioning, with all their manifestations, stems from a fundamental condition that is common to all humans. In the Christian tradition, this condition is referred to as “sin”, I prefer to refer to it as “error”. For me, these two terms, sin and error, have the same meaning. For example, to say “I am not aware that I live in sin” is the same as saying “I am not aware that I live in error”. This condition of error is the condition that is most difficult to remove.
I have been there and done that long time ago, the details of which I keep to myself.
I see, the so-called ‘original sin’ of Christians
Well, then let me ask you, when Christian theologians themselves argue about the existence or not of such ‘original sin’, how come you are so sure about it? And another thing, what if you are not a Christian and therefore do not believe in ‘original sin’?
And yet, how do you feel listening to Krishnamurti saying ‘there is in the Christian world original sin, whatever that may mean, and Christians everywhere have been conditioned through propaganda to believe in this original sin. And, of course, that has bred a great deal of fear’
Yes for some Christian theologians, but not for all. Which places the issue of ‘original sin’ merely in the realm of speculation. Unless, of course, you have irrefutable proof of its existence that you can show us.
May I ask what ‘living in sin/error’ means to you? And in any case, to live in sin/error with respect to what, and according to whom?
I see, so you would rather entertain speculations in a Krishnamurti forum than expose yourself in a conversation/investigation (expose: to cause to be visible or open to view). And then we call this ‘thinking together’, right?
Our fundamental human condition is error, this is not a conclusion of mine, it is a fact of human existence, and this fact is so obvious that it escapes the human eye. In fact, we live in error just as we live in air—we breath air, obviously, but we do not see it.