The self

[DavidS]

@Patricia

So what is the correct action?

I am not sure what you mean here? In regards to my original post to you, or correct action in general?

Can you say more to unpack what you want to explore.

[Inquiry]

@DavidS

the self is so deceptive and sneaky and finds innumerable ways of taking over.

If what we’re calling “self” is the result of conclusions we’ve drawn and beliefs we hold about how to live on Earth and in human society, and we know that self is “deceptive and sneaky” and intent on “taking over”, then actually seeing this is the end of it, because it would be untenable to be consciously deceptive and sneaky (unless one is a psychopath).

So it’s not enough to know what we are - it must be seen for what it is, and we’re too deceptive and sneaky to allow for that.

[DanMcD]

@DavidS

For the self is so deceptive and sneaky and finds innumerable ways of taking over.

The ‘self’ IS “deceptive and sneaky”
when it describes itself as such, when it purports to be separate from itself.

[Inquiry]

@DanMcD

The ‘self’ IS “deceptive and sneaky”
when it describes itself as such, when it purports to be separate from itself.

Duplicity is one of the many things implied by “deceptive and sneaky”, but it depends on whether it’s pretending to be separate from itself, or is just admitting to what it does. We could say that the self is a bag of dirty tricks that will be employed for as long as it takes to see them in operation.

We’ve proved that we can pull the wool over our own eyes. Now the question is whether we can observe ourselves doing it.

[DanMcD]

The duplicity of there being an actual ‘thinker’ who is separate and apart from the thinking process.

[Inquiry]

But you see through that, don’t you? Thought is just thought.

[DanMcD]

@Inquiry

Now the question is whether we can observe ourselves doing it.

For my understanding this is what K meant with the word “attention”, a different “dimension” of awareness. That could watch the thoughts like watching a bird in flight…no judgement. It’s an extraordinary idea, that such a thing may be possible. It implies a total freedom from the known.

[Inquiry]

@DanMcD

For my understanding this is what K meant with the word “attention”, a different “dimension” of awareness. That could watch the thoughts like watching a bird in flight…no judgement.

Forget about “no judgment” - it’s impossible until there’s no judge.

I can only watch every thought that arises and arouses related thoughts, be they judgmental or not. I can only do what I actually can - not what I think I should.

[DanMcD]

No that’s not what I’m trying to say. Only the state of ‘attention’ can see me being ‘inattentive’. You experiment with it, try to do it of course but you can’t ‘be’ it. You ‘want’ it but it doesn’t want anything , my guess, probably because it IS everything. But when you work with it, at it, something changes. Seeing ‘your’ thought as it ‘goes out the door’ is a shock. When one sets about to follow one’s thoughts, they change and they start thinking about ‘following one’s thoughts’ so in the bird example , your watching the bird fly changes the bird’s direction …so it seems to me an art that is out of our hands. Where the ‘watching’ doesn’t react to what is. As K said , doesn’t “mind what happens”.

[Inquiry]

@DanMcD

so it seems to me an art that is out of our hands. Where the ‘watching’ doesn’t react to what is. As K said , doesn’t “mind what happens”.

I wouldn’t get too attached to what K said. I’m sure he minded many things that happened…he was meticulous and fastidious.

Any art that is out of our hands is not art because, as far as I know, art is what only humans do. If a human brain can watch without reacting, that may be art. But all I can do is watch with the intent to find out what’s actually happening.

[DanMcD]

@Inquiry

But all I can do is watch with the intent to find out what’s actually happening.

Any approach to thousands of years of human brain precedent is better than no approach at all.

[Patricia]

@DavidS

I am not sure what you mean here? In regards to my original post to you, or correct action in general?

David - in relation to life.To the disordered manner in which we human beings live.

@DavidS

Can you say more to unpack what you want to explore.

The human brain is either in order - or in complete disorder.

If in complete order there is no action required - war - conflict - killing - attacking each other - all part of order. So we continue along as we are going…

On the other hand - if it is deeply understood that the brain is in complete disorder (which is what K pointed out) - is there a correct action?

Where does it start?

[DavidS]

Patricia,

Krishnamurti talked about order and right action amongst many other topics.

I have read Krishnamurti on it but still things like order or right action remain theory, abstractions for me.

It is obvious though to see that human beings live in a very disordered manner. War, conflict, violence, division, hatred, killing goes on daily. We do not live from order nor do we live in an coherent manner.

Unless there is a radical change or transformation it seems we are to continue going along as we are now, to our destruction.

On an individual basis I can see that my brain is in disorder, is not in order, something is amiss.

I cannot seem to live my daily life without some form of conflict, disorder in it.

Before right action, correct action, it seems it must start with staying with and seeing what my daily life really is, not some ideal or abstraction about it, but what it really is, from moment to moment. How I treat the clerk at the store, how I look at the homeless person asking for money, how I react to the war in Ukraine and the peoples suffering, how I treat my family, etc.

I have not fully seen it nor lived it, but Love, Compassion, and Intelligence, they are all one, and somehow when one has this, then it seems Right Action will take place constantly.

But this is all theory for me, I have not seen it for myself, on a deep level, right now it is only intellectual concepts and theory.

[Inquiry]

@DavidS

But this is all theory for me, I have not seen it for myself, on a deep level, right now it is only intellectual concepts and theory.

Yes, that’s why we’re here.

[Patricia]

David -

Surely it depends upon how universal one’s concerns are.

If they are for humanity - for the beautiful planet and the creatures of the planet - then one is deeply responsible at every level for the disorder. The house is - as K said - ‘burning’. That brings about immediate action - does it not? There is no choice.

If all one wants is to feel better about oneself - to no longer be in conflict - to be personally ‘happy’ - then it is a different action. One can go on contemplating one’s navel forever and just hope for a miracle to happen!

But in that eventuality - isn’t the lifelong teaching of K - in its profound and enduring entirety - completely lost?

Is the teaching of K about making us all feel better? Did he speak for all those years just for that? Or is the teaching about the whole disorder of mankind - and the total understanding of it?

[Patricia]

@Inquiry

Yes, that’s why we’re here.

So what do ‘we’ do about it? Or is there actually no ‘we’?

[DanMcD]

@Patricia

Or is there actually no ‘we’?

There is no ‘we’. ‘We’ is a long held persistent man made trap.

K took the time to specifically point that out : “you are the world” and when a man kills another man, he is killing himself, etc.

[DavidS]

@Patricia

Is the teaching of K about making us all feel better? Did he speak for all those years just for that? Or is the teaching about the whole disorder of mankind - and the total understanding of it?

I have nothing more to add, you summed it up well. The teachings are about the whole, about humanity, and the whole world. It is not about the individual. It is an universal, global concern as you say.

[Inquiry]

@Patricia

Is the teaching of K about making us all feel better? Did he speak for all those years just for that?

Krishnamurti did not want anyone to feel better about themselves, but to question whether one’s self is real or imagined, and perhaps find out.

[Inquiry]

@Patricia

So what do ‘we’ do about it? Or is there actually no ‘we’?

By “we” I mean those of us participating in this forum, but I suppose one could say there is no we because each one of us is exclusive and isolated by ones content.