I don’t understand what you mean by ‘responsible.’ Please explain. 
Are the responsibility and the change separate? Does the change follow from the responsibility, or are they both words for the same thing?
They may both be different words for the same thing. Generally, we resist change because we have formed so many comfortable habits and gathered around us our favourite theories and opinions. It is our responsibility to find out what is false and what is true, what is factual and what is fictitious in our lives. That’s all. It is about being responsible to the senses through which we communicate to one another and to the rest of the world. Thought is one of those senses, but thought is far less reliable than our eyes and ears because thought changes what we see and hear into versions of reality based on old patterns from the past, which may be the past of a few hours ago or the past of millennia. So change is already built into us, yet we seem to be oblivious to it. Therefore it is our responsibility to wake up to all of this.
I still don’t understand what you mean by responsibility.
By “it is our responsibility to find out …” do you mean only we can find out for ourselves, no one can find out for us?
Or do you mean we have some form of moral/ethical/spiritual obligation to find out, as members (like it or not!) of the same family of man living on the same planet?
Or something else entirely?
Is it ‘responding’ to the fact that we are conditioned? Responding by ‘learning’ about the actions of the self? Learning in the sense of ‘moving with’ and not a process of accumulation?
I don’t know. It is clear that we have made a mess of things. How will our thinking take responsibility for this mess? We have no answer. So it is our responsibility as the representatives of human consciousness to find an answer to the various problems our own thinking has wrought upon the world. This responsibility can’t belong to anyone else or to some divine agency outside of thought.
Thinking ‘responds’ by becoming quiet when the error of its movement, when it’s not needed, is seen.
Okay, that’s more understandable, thanks!
We broke it, it’s our responsibility to fix it. The responsibility is to the ‘it’ that we broke: humans, animals, plants, the planet, thought, politics, culture, society, life, existence.
And the fixing begins with us taking the responsibility to fix ourselves, our minds. So learning (in a Krishnamurti sense, non-accumulation) is an act of love for ‘it’ for everything.
Wait. You are both giving verbal, descriptive answers, which is thought reacting to a position it has reached, either to confirm and strengthen that position or to move on to a better one. Thought is incapable of becoming quiet because any movement of thought must have a motive behind it. Has thought come to a complete stop - not as a reaction, not as a stepping stone to some better level of consciousness, but simply because it has sensed its own unimportance, its own impotence in all human relationship? In other words, it is our deepest responsibility to stop fixing things. Then, although there is no answer, there is a total transformation of the mess. Only when this actually happens can you attempt to describe it. Otherwise, it is all just another clever invention, the postponement of change.
Definitely true for me. I experience it as hanging around change, warming myself by the fire. My passion and awe are real, but a bit like the awe sitting in a beautiful European cathedral soaking up the vibes of ‘something divine.’ I like to think about changing, not actually change.
That’s the truth. That’s ‘what is’. No judgement. No movement away. No movement is change.
Be careful. It could be hubris to draw this conclusion. We may need something we don’t have to undo what we’ve done to ourselves.
It’s not my view or conclusion, it’s my attempt to understand what Paul means by ‘responsibility.’
So change is always as an idea, a concept. Therefore thought remains at the head of the pack, deciding what any change in direction will look like. But thought also puts together the idea that there is an actual change different from all this: that there is thinking about change and there is actual change. Surely there isn’t any difference: the actual change is still very much an idea.
Or there is no change in thought at all. When thought is totally silent, that’s not a change in thought, because thought is not there. Death of the self is not a change in the self. There is no entity involved who is experiencing or undergoing the change. The entity known as the ‘me’ doesn’t exist at all when thought has ceased operating. And this is the change which we imagine. Rather than stop thinking, we imagine what it would be like to stop thinking. Why? That’s only a stupid use of thought. The intelligent use of thought is to find out what happens when thought stops. It is only from a direct understanding of the significance of its own inactivity that the activity of thought can ever display real intelligence.
Yes!
And there’s the rub: the Catch 22 of thought finding out what happens when it stops.
Hii friends, I have a question.
What is the difference between “RESPONSE” and “RESPONSIBLE”?
Might one say that a responsibility is that which calls for a response?
I see that, in responsibility there is control.
But in response, it is not. As, it is a natural.
The normal understanding of responsibility, a duty or obligation to respond, involves control. But responsibility might also be taken to mean a response that happens ‘on its own’ arising from the necessity of the situation rather than any external control.
?
Then it is a natural response without any control.
How the term “RESPONSIBILITY” is associated to both control and uncontrol?
I did not understood properly.