The ego destroys everything

[Inquiry]

@Jobuys

There is this foundation, this fact , that my brain isn"t mine

Then why do you call it “my” brain?

Is there an actual I to have a brain?

[Jobuys]

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.

[Inquiry]

I’m not sure what you’re asking.

[Jobuys]

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

[Inquiry]

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

[Twocents]

@Jobuys

I do not quite understand, because knowing all these things (and they are facts, no doubt about this), why haven’t we changed fundamentally?
2. Do we want to change at all?
3. What is needed if anything, to bring about this change?

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.

[Jobuys]

Because I told you explicitly in one of my replies.

[Jobuys]

@Twocents
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.
Sincerely,
Joost

[Jobuys]

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.

[Twocents]

@Jobuys

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.

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.

[O7007]

@James

really final post (for the time being)!!, as I feel this is pertinent to what has happened recently on Kinfonet, and which - looking at the world around us - happens so often in our relationships generally: which is that so often our discussions end up in conflict. Why is this?

Some people have left because of it. Some people drop by just to create it. And everyone is guilty of it to one degree or another.

So what is the root cause of it?

There are, of course, a plethora of secondary causes: for example, communication and miscommunication, not being able to express oneself clearly in English, not being able to process long sentences and paragraphs, being confused by the way people write or talk. And also each person brings to a discussion their own mood and setting - such as tiredness, subjective reactions of boredom and irritation, having images of each other, being at different stages of life, having different personalities and psychological constitutions from others, etc.

In addition there is the fact that this is a discussion forum set up to look at Krishnamurti’s teachings, and there are a number of different approaches to what he has said, different opinions and interpretations; or people’s fundamental ideological objections to what he has said. There is the issue of authority and reaction to authority. All this may contribute to the conflict here.

There are also the more technical reasons Krishnamurti has himself given for conflict, such as the built-in limitations of thought, knowledge and experience, etc.

But I think it is obvious that the main factor is each person’s blatant or subtle (or hidden) selfishness. Each person’s egotism. And this egotism destroys everything.

Some people, paradoxically, may express this egotism by assuming that they have insight and are without ego. Some people may express it by assuming that they already know themselves, and that any serious person is “already aware” of their ego. Some people may express it by rationalising the ego away - i.e. that everyone is egotistic, so why bother even looking at it. Some people may express it by an over confidence in their own knowledge, or in assuming that their own experiences are vastly more important than those of other people. While others may express it by actively sabotaging investigation, or by being actively resistant - whether because of fear, prejudice, ideology, or simple vanity.

What is the ego?

Briefly, the ego is - or includes - our ideas and beliefs, our convictions and prejudices, our images of ourselves and of each other, our psychological knowledge, our psychological reactions in relationship, our emotions and self interest, our defensiveness, our competitiveness, our vanity and our arrogance. All this informs, or is part of, what we call ‘ego’.

So what can be done about it?

As far as I can see it, the only thing we can do about our egotism is to see it as it is happening; to watch it as it expresses itself in ourselves (as well as in others). To be sensitive to how this egotism slowly creeps into a discussion and throttles it, how it creeps into a relationship or an interaction and takes over, creating endless arguments and dissension.

So we have to be attentive, as it is occurring, to the movement of ego in all its forms.

This is not to say that there is no place for honest disagreement about things, for questioning each other and asking each other for clarification, etc. Clearly there is. There is obviously a place for pushing back on people’s sometimes baseless assertions; for asking questions where one feels there to be obtuseness or lack of clarity; for calling out what seem to be obvious falsehoods, or expressions of prejudice.

But this doesn’t have to be done with a sense of antagonism and ego. One can point out obvious errors and clarify ambiguities with a sense of friendship, frankness and equanimity. And one can be open to other people’s questions and criticisms without reacting with hurt pride or frustration. But we can only act in this way if we are present, attentive, to the ever-present danger of our own egocentricity.

Each of us is responsible for having - or not having - this awareness. One could call this having emotional intelligence, or being sensitive.

Obviously we fail in this all the time. And yet it is clear - from what we see both here, in our relationships with others, as well as in the world at large - that such awareness is existential, vital in relationship. Without it everything goes to pieces.

I think we all grasp this intellectually. But for some reason we do not grasp it with our intelligence, and act upon it, which is why there is still conflict.

This is the fundamental challenge it seems to me. So many of our questions and concerns roll into it.

Can we be aware of our own egotism as it expresses itself in relationship

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?

[Jobuys]

@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?

[Twocents]

@Jobuys

nevertheless, knowing all this, doesn’t bring out a radical change in our mind. Have we missed something?
Some vital point?

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.

[Jobuys]

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?