Doesn’t being aware need a subject?
No, not ‘help’. People approach all this in their own way and some try to describe what they have found. They know that the description is not the thing that they have found but try to communicate it to others. Some of us try to clarify our understanding with others but we have to get out of our own ‘traps’ when they are seen…there is no ‘help’ for that.
I wouldn’t call awareness a “process” because it’s beyond the brain.
When the conditioned brain is aware that actuality does not support its beliefs, it reflexively distorts, denies, or dulls its awareness accordingly.
I would say that we are helping ourselves
In what way are we helping ourselves?
Because we are able to see things in us directly as they are. And exchange something between us
That would be a good use of the forum.
When, for instance, did you see something in yourself as it actually is?
just don’t get me wrong - it is very and maybe the only good. And it’s a pity there is so little of it here
Sir, to share it maybe even more difficult
We are able “to see things in us directly as they are” only when there’s insight, and insight is so rare and so transformative, that we can’t take it for granted or expect it to occur.
What’s more, the conditioned brain can believe it has had an insight, and is inclined to do so. So how would you know when you’ve had an insight, and why would you want to talk about it to others?
Maybe you’re just being too theoretic… In fact, everything K. talked about is just this
“Awareness is beyond the brain” is a possibility but not a fact for me. It may be just like any other brain ability, complex but physiological.
1 Like
You’re being too vague. It isn’t clear what you’re trying to communicate.
Do you see yourself for what it is, are you aware that you’re more inclined to lie to yourself than face facts?
I think I see, Sir. “Seeing things directly as they are” sounds very ambitious. But it is not that I want to say I do this quite so and blah blah. But it seems quite real for everybody of us. And this was the point of K.
Hi Valer
This doesn’t make sense to me in English and maybe to others, maybe you could use some of the translation apps if you wish.
‘Mechanics’, ‘machinery’… doesn’t sound at all right (eventually, it’s even abusive language or blasphemous) when talking about what is living. What everybody can observe is that energy manifests in patterns which have their own intelligence. We can observe (and that’s all we can do) these patterns in all that is living and surrounds us or is inside us. Some patterns we identify easily, others we aren’t easily aware of. Patterns are nohing to do with mechanics! If we are humble enough to surrender to the ways of these patterns we will understand how we developed our habits and will understand about how they fit or don’t fit in a right way of living, which Krishnamurti calls the art of living. When Krishnamurti says that thought becomes mechanical all he means is that it is wrong to do things secondhand, that is all.
If " ‘you’ see that a reality can instantly become a totally different reality in the light of awareness", ‘you’ are lost. Because there is no ‘you’ anywhere that sees that. Which means that that ‘you’ is still trapped in its familiar and “beautiful/romantic” images of both its conscious and unconscious conditioning about what it thinks “what is” is.
No, it simply sustains it (without effort), until inattention arises again, which makes awareness vanish spontaneously in the same way it arose.
This made me laugh out loud 
We cannot know in any way whether what appears to us as a theory is also a theory for the person who says what he says. That is why there is such a thing as questioning, not only what the other says, but also what we ourselves think/say.
Not in the sense that thought thinks what a subject is.
This is the main problem, that the brain does not usually trust insight/awareness, no matter how crystal clear it shows to it “what is”.