A good doctor keeps a professional distance from his or her patient. But you are the patient alone. Why invent any kind of doctor? There is no doctor when we are psychologically in pain; and a clinical distance is then impossible. You are studying, understanding and experiencing in order to make some sense of your relationship to the world and to remain safe within that relationship. But you are the world. While you maintain any relationship to it there is only a movement between the controller and the controlled, a movement in conflict. You are the world alone.
2 Likes
The clinical distance can be difficult to maintain when things heat up psychologically. But, with practice, it gets easier, and if you lose it, itâs easier to re-find.
This view has never particularly resonated with me. If it is taken as a framework, I prefer the framework âI am both an individual and the whole.â If it is taken literally, it doesnât compute.
It can never be a view - thatâs the whole point. The moment one has any view of it, it is already something false. This is not something one can take or leave. You are reading this now until the censor comes in and says, âThis part I take,â or, âThis part I leave.â Then you have stopped reading. Thatâs all.
No doubt that you have the answer to your own question. Please share it with us.
Minds earnestly propping up their self-esteem are âtacklingâ nothing and, it seems to me, impeding the inquiry. Are we here to display our imagined grasp of the teaching, or to find out why it exists? A few here have all the answers and are condescending, even though theyâre just repeating and paraphrasing Krishnamurtiâs words. I find them to be a nuisance, but apparently they go with the territory. It seems one must patiently endure them because resistance is not only futile, but a waste of energy.
True, those words could communicate âpathâ depending on the tilt of the readerâs head .
However, in the interest of communication, we do need to afford each other a bit of generosity with regard to the intent rather than laser focus on the unavoidable ambiguity of the words being used, no? Donning a K-police hat serves little purpose other than to shut down engagement. It is impractical to preface each conversation with a disclaimer that one is using this or that word in this or that cleansed sense âŚ
However, point taken. You are absolutely correct, knowledge and understanding do inevitably settle into intent that in turn informs and dictates our next move. So no radical change takes place in consciousness.
That is the key to this puzzle those of us intrigued by these matters are trying to uncover for ourselves. Whether the only recourse open to us when faced with a vital insoluble problem is to answer with either I know or I donât know? Further machinations of thought.
Or is there another âactionâ possible that has thus far eluded us? One that does not derive from further deliberation. An action that is not time based, not predicated on resolution but on direct response. An instinctive one, perhaps, that kicks in once thought has exhausted itself. The central issue then is the hubris of thought. It never exhausts itself even when it claims to have understood its limits.
I donât know if such a thing is possible. But I am keen to find out. Even if it is a pipe dream, to me nothing will have been lost. The way we live now is sorely lacking.
1 Like
If it is not a view, what is it?
It has no meaning at all. It is there. It is only to those things for which we yearn that we give meaning.
The point I was trying to bring out is that we actually donât know what meditation is. We repeat conclusions such as âit is simply seeing what isâ glibly. There is undoubtedly a level of significance in that statement that is lost in its translation from sensation to meaning.
1 Like
How do you know itâs there?
What can be said about something that is unknown?
Answers cannot be shared. We share the question. Do we have such a mind, one that is capable of doing this?
While we are talking, looking, enquiring together, living together, it is there. You are the proof of it. How do you know you are there? Itâs exactly the same thing.
Aha, okay, yes, sure: It is there.
What is it? In what way does it exist?
Yes, but can any mechanical process understand its limits? It may be that only intelligence can understand the limits of thought, and that human intelligence can not awaken from its anesthetized, stupified condition. One hopes this isnât the case, but if no one âgot itâ after Krishnamurti spent a lifetime trying to convey it, it may be that hope is all weâve got.
How do you know that no one got it - maybe people got it even before K ever opened his mouth?
How does K know that no one got it? This just means that no one was able to communicate the fact to him (whether because they did not meet or because K had difficulty relating to people)?
We do not, and cannot know from here - all we have is our beliefs.
If I think that something is impossible without reason, it is just due to the unreasonable belief in my own beliefs.
Yes, Iâm aware of this and thatâs why I say âifâ no one got it. I donât doubt that there have been awakened humans, and that there may be some even today, but I donât presume to be one of them.
If I think that something is impossible without reason, it is just due to the unreasonable belief in my own beliefs.
I donât think that awakening is impossibleâŚI just donât know that it actually happens, so all I can do is hope that it happens. Call this a belief if you must.
1 Like
Who are you? In what way do you exist? One can give a conditioned answer to any of these questions. And, seeking satisfaction, thatâs usually what we do: we find ways to reinforce the conditioning. But these questions really have no answers and no meanings outside of the conditioned mind that poses them. A conditioned mind which asks, âWhat is freedom?â must inevitably be searching for an answer away from itself, thus creating noise and disturbance in the space between the question and the answer.
So it is only a quiet mind that is truly free. And our minds are actually tremendously quiet, deeply and profoundly silent and still. But thought is scared of silence and inactivity, so it calls all that âthe voidâ and works to present an image of itself which has a semblance of identity and continuity. Watching the noise and activity of thought, watching the whole image-making machine in play, this is the origin of freedom, not something far, far away in a distant universe.
1 Like
So I am it.
But âIâ is an illusion.
?
To whom is this statement supposed to make any sense?