Is this real for you or just a theory ?
If youâre aware of a pedestal (other than your own), address it directly instead of pussy-footing around it the way weâve been doing. Or, just talk about your own pedestal.
I appreciate the kick in the pants, brother (sister?), but wouldnât that be too personal for this forum?
What is insight?
Is it in seeing that the brain/mind is either in complete order, or in complete disorder psychologically/physiologically? - that there is no halfway?
So which is it?
And what action arises out of that insight? It is that simple.
Did you read what K said about insight or you didnât have the time to do so?
Kâs understanding of insight does not bring about understanding or insight in another.
The word is not the thing - as K so often pointed out.
Hi Richard. The extract you shared is part of a longer passage on awareness (not insight), parts of which were discussed on a recent thread (Whatâs really going on here/now?). If you are interested in my reflections on this - and there is no reason why you should be - you can find them in that thread. The essential core of the text you shared is the following:
when there is a response to the tree, when the tree is judged with like and dislike, then a division takes place in this awareness as the âmeâ and the ânon-meâ, the âmeâ who is different from the thing observed. This âmeâ is the response, in relationship, of past memory, past experiences. Now can there be an awareness, an observation of the tree, without any judgement, and can there be an observation of the response, the reactions, without any judgement?
So what K is asking here is whether there can be an awareness of the perceptible world (without creating secondary images and judgements); and, where there is a secondary movement of reactions and judgements (which builds up the âmeâ), to be aware of that also.
I have no objections to this (you asked me how I see this).
The passage of mine you have quoted from doesnât make complete sense without its context (you have also missed out the first line of what was written, which makes its context more clear). However, I will try to outline the general background that led up to the passage you quote.
The background context was a discussion of what different participants understood to be entailed in the cessation of self. I understand K to have taught that the true ending of the self includes, or involves, the ending of all psychological suffering.
However, another participant responded by apparently implying (his language wasnât clear) that the insight âyou are the worldâ (a topic that had not been discussed on the thread) has already ended suffering, giving the mind a sense of its own limitlessness.
This didnât sound right to me, so I questioned whether we have adequately understood the full meaning of that insight of Kâs (i.e. that âyou are the worldâ) - seeing as we had not discussed it on this thread or elsewhere.
I asked whether this insight (âyou are the worldâ) is a whole, complete insight which takes into account the totality of human suffering, or only a partial insight (giving us a temporary feeling of limitlessness or âawakeningâ). This question was rejected by the other participant, who perhaps believed that one was acting in bad faith. They replied by suggesting that the insight âyou are the worldâ has completely âshattered the wallâ of the self.
So I attempted to point out to them that this âwallâ (of self) also includes the content of human âsufferingâ, and asked whether the insight spoken of by the participant has in fact (for the participant) ended all suffering? This question was answered ambiguously.
So then, in an attempt to clarify what the participant meant by the insight âyou are the worldâ, I asked them if they felt that the suffering of people in wars, etc was their own actual suffering. But it seems that this question was taken as more bad faith, and the discussion halted.
That is why I wrote the passage which you have quoted from, attempting to point out that what K seems to have meant by the insight âyou are worldâ involves an enquiry into the whole nature of human consciousness, including its content of human suffering, which we each of us share (according to K). I was not writing it as a theoretical exercise; nor was I writing it because I myself have had a total insight into the stream of human suffering (and the true compassion that comes with such insight). I was writing it in order to pursue the dialogue where it had led up to that point (which by now included the issues of insight, cessation, suffering, and what it means to have shared human consciousness), and trying to ascertain what K meant by these things.
Here is the passage you quoted, but now with the first line included:
Does it make sense to you now?
1 Like
I will leave it at that. Thanks.
Ok. Anytime. Have a good day
The brain/mind has been conditioned it seems, to admit the presence of âtimeâ. Weâre considering the possibility that that was somehow a wrong direction brought about by the evolution in the neocortex, an outcome in the development of thought. If that is so then the presence/use of time in the mind is âdisorderâ. The use of time (which is the self) to solve problems in the mind, envy, jealousy, anger etc is disorder. According to K, these problems must be solved âimmediatelyâ, or time (âthe enemy of manâ) will continue to occupy the mind: disorder.
When time is ended in the brain/mind, self which is time, has no place.
Time, has its usefulness. What I am hearing is that order means âin its placeâ .
1 Like
Time in the mind is what weâre calling âpsychological thoughtâ which is the self, which is disorder.
Time there is âout of placeâ.
1 Like
It depends on why youâre here. If you donât âgetâ what K was trying to get across, you want to communicate with others who are similarly uncertain and open-minded about the teaching. But when many people posting here believe they get it and speak authoritatively, itâs more like a lunatic asylum than a discussion forum.
If you downplay or ignore the fact that those who imagine themselves âseriousâ are seriously self-deceived, and those who are serious about finding out what Krishnamurti was trying to convey donât address this, no one here is serious.
Every Krishnamurti forum Iâve been in (a handful) has had a âlunatic asylumâ component. Itâs fascinating! And kind of sad. I probably wouldnât keep participating in these forums if it werenât for my LQ, lunatic quotient, which is quite high, though not because I consider myself an authority on Krishnamurti.
I suppose Iâm on the cusp of your take on what it means to be serious here. Iâm totally into finding out whatâs really going on (in ârealityâ), but Krishnamurtiâs views represent just one perspective for me.
It seems to me that K was addressing the fact that we donât see whatâs actually happening because weâre more concerned with getting-what-I-want/not-getting-what-I-donât-want than with whatâs actually happening. You see this as âone perspectiveâ, but if we canât perceive directly, clearly, without distortion, what other perspective is there?
1 Like
I might be using perspective differently than you, here goes:
Everyone has their personal philosophy, their view of what does or doesnât makes things tick. Each of these views is, for me, a unique perspective on the nature of reality.
In this way I see Krishnamurtiâs views as a perspective, not The Perspective. His views might be closer to âthe truthâ than another personâs views (or might not), but there is imo no ultimately privileged perspective, no absolutely true view. Alles ist relativ.
If thatâs still hazy, let me know.
Why bring in âprivilegedâ? Do you see the distortion created by your opinion that âthere is no absolutely true viewâ? Isnât perception a true view when thereâs no distortion?
I see the absurdity in an absolute denial of absolutes, but I donât know what you mean by distortion?
Anything believed or assumed has a distorting effect on perception. A free, open mind doesnât limit itself by pretending to know more than it actually experiences or can demonstrate.