The ego destroys everything

Then why do you call it “my” brain?

Is there an actual I to have a brain?

Was this “my” confusing you? I thought I made it clear, though!
Before we go any further in this thread i wanted to ask you whether you have read my reply ( except for your comment) and if you would be so kind as to give answer when I ask you something (question at the very end of the reply).
I would be very grateful.

I’m not sure what you’re asking.

1 Like

Question was : why do you refer to another thread while i thought we were discussing something here and now?

If reading the other thread addresses your question, why ask why?

  1. Factual Knowledge only adds to the accumulation. It cannot bring about the change or freedom that Krishnamurti talks about. My loved one is dying of cancer. All the rational explanations given by medical experts and the logical inevitability of the terminal illness does nothing to my suffering. Neither do the rational explanations of religion and philosophy. The limitations of thought which includes logic and reason stand exposed.

  2. The objective fact is that we do Not want to change. We like to think that we want to change. So we indulge in various explanations and discussions. We feel these activities bring us closer to change. But so long as we want to maintain a life of pleasure/comfort/security in any form at any level however subtle, no change is possible.

  3. Only surrender to what is can bring about the change. Which implies dropping all pleasure (attachments, security) and therefore fear at all levels. This is very hard and in any case nobody really wants to do it. What we want is to make ourselves aware. That is, to retain the ‘me’ and also be in a state of awareness. But the two can never coexist.

Because I told you explicitly in one of my replies.

I don’t know you at all, except that you seem interested in the teachings and that you read my post and did an attempt to answer.
You bring in a personal issue as a kind of illustration to what you are trying to convey.
Sometimes this might clear things up, because, at least, you seem to come in contact with the pain, so that it is not becoming an abstraction.
You seem also to acknowledge that there is no comfort in rationalising, explaining, etc…
And yet, your sorrow is the sorrow of mankind. I hope this is not sounding as a plaster on a sore wound, or like some empty slogan, but rather as a fact, as an actual thing.
But, most of the time, we don’t feel it that way, no? Why? Is it because we are too absorbed in our own pain? Don’t we have to find out for ourselves what this pain is all about? And is it not necessary to find this out for oneself without any help ? So that we stand alone?
I know that the teachings are about this and i must admit that I am still struggling with this too.

I am not so sure that surrendering will solve any problem at all.
When you listen or look at your thoughts there seems or there is always an observer, no? Do you want this observer to surrender to whatever is coming up in his mind? Is there a will involved, like i will surrender. Or is it more like a motive in order to get something? When there is an observer then there must be a motive.
So it seem always to boil down to look at it(whatever that may be) without the observer.
Unfortunately we have been trained, conditioned to bring in an observer, an ego.
You mention "awareness’ and that the two will never go together and I agree.
But why are we mentioning this? Is it some kind of “deus ex machina”, some kind of miracle that overcomes us from time to time. Why then do we have a memory of it?
Have we nevertheless recorded it? And is the memory playing part in it? Why else do we want it?
I will leave it for today but still wanting to explore it.

  1. Our way of looking or observing is always fragmentary with an observer (I) looking at (my) problem (anger, fear etc). This is Not the looking that Krishnamurti talks about.

  2. Surrender is never possible when there is a motive or an observer. “I will surrender” is just as much an illusion as “I will be in a state of awareness” or “I will try to overcome suffering by discussions and explanations”. Surrender means no mind, no thought, no mental activity, no resistance to what is.

Unless you and me don’t define what ego exactly is our discussion about ego leads to nowhere. What do you exactly mean by the word ego? Do you mean Ego and Ed as Freud introduced or you are talking about narcissism, self-concern?
We can’t take what K said for granted, that is sacrilege .
We need to start from our own thinking and see how falsely it is.
Seeing false as false is the most important. Nothing else is important, don’t you think so?

@Twocents : nevertheless, knowing all this, doesn’t bring out a radical change in our mind. Have we missed something?
Some vital point?
It is said that most of us do understand the teachings intellectually and that this very understanding might obstruct deeper investigation.
After all there is always the danger of making a concept from whatever has been said. So, why do we fo this, over and over again? Continuing om the same nail?
Does it give us a sense of quietness, like repeating a mantra?

I had already replied to these earlier and don’t want to repeat myself. The bottom line is that the ‘me’ wants to keep itself going/alive and does not want to change because it will mean death of the me, death of my pleasures, comfort, security. One way to keep itself going is by discussions, explanations, explorations and so on whereby the ‘me’ creates the impression that it is somehow serious about change. It will do anything but cannot surrender to what is.

I know I have to find out all this for myself.
But I thought that in inquiring with someone else something might reveal itself.
As it goes now, we seem to repeat ourselves and others but I see no truth in all this.
Does this enlighten something?