Yes, looking very closely at fear is not indulgence, but escaping from it is.
Fear may enter in early on when there is only energy but no word for it, but the recording of it is stored as memory. The self then coalesces around it as that very thing now called fear, which is then central to the fact of my being. Self cannot be wiped unless that fear is faced, but the fear cannot be faced without the self then ending. So fear upholds self, just as self upholds fear. If I want myself, I have to live with fear, but if I would be free of fear I must give up myself.
The event in question, which is the energy now called fear, the word not having been at the time it formed, is one and the same as self, not self with fear, so the action which is looking at that fear and allowing it to fully flower is unknown, but it portends dissolution, and with that the end of self. So it is the action of seeing fear.
“seeing fear” is the renunciation of self? So there’s no renunciation without ‘seeing’? Will plays no part in renunciation…I think we all see that will IS self, so cannot lead to renunciation.
Giving up or renouncing myself is how the self is seeing it, but that too is an image of fear because that is what self is. The brain can look at fear, and allow fear to blossom, but there comes a point where the fate of fear and the fate of self are indistinguishable and fear ending is death
Dominic said : “I feel we need to learn what this actually is, as we cannot just leave it to play itself out.”
Huguette said : " The intellect (memory, knowledge, verbalization, reasoning, etc.) can know ITSELF."
My question being : What is the difference between “seeing” and “learning”?
Freedom from the known is obviously not the same as knowledge.
I suspect some people are hoping that there may be some conclusion that might lead to Psychological death - just a little more effort by good ole me, to get rid of the bad ole me?
Understanding is not the same as constructing a world view. If I see the whole delusion (not observe my interpretation and analysis of its parts) am I free of it? If I understand whats happening is it still a problem?
What is fear? Simply, globally; not its contents. If we want to observe its subtlety, then see its subtlest movement, not its intricate detail. (the search for security is already present in the naming of each movement : me, tree, this, that, car, thunder, here, there…)
I cannot fix this, I cannot reform this, I cannot end this is all.
Yes what is fear, not what is an instance of fear. This is why I ask is it in recording itself, is it in sensation itself. If it is in sensation then I am looking right at it, and the end of it is…as far as thought is concerned, is death.
Thats why I keep bringing it up. I’m trying to say that they are practically opposites.
One is about accumulation, in the hope that over time this accumulation can be used in order to act upon reality - it is about producing something that can be grasped and used for ones own security and progress.
There is the death of a thought, and there is the death of me - one is more spectacular and scary than the other, thats why we advise sitting calmly with no goal and just letting each moment fade into the next without stopping nor grasping.
K was specific that the ‘learning ‘ he was speaking about was not accumulative but sort of as I understand it, a ‘moving with ‘ what is seen. Different than the usual understanding of ‘learning ‘ as in accumulating and memorizing.
Bad word choice then, as learning usually means acquisition of knowledge or skills.
Here we want learning to mean seeing what is happening now - without this “knowledge” leaving a trace for futur use to interpret the new now.
Just seeing the flux without grasping this, this, nor this.
For if we acquire knowledge and depend on it for seeing - this is no longer seeing, but instead interpretation.
Yes I understand what you are saying, it is this thing about knowledge, and whether in seeing or learning I produce knowledge, and even have that as a motivation. There again Krishnamurti pointed out the need for knowledge of myself. So must learning produce knowledge which is psychological just because it is knowledge of the psyche?
Just to add. Krushnamurti made a distinction between psychological knowledge and technical knowledge, and did not see technological knowledge as an issue. So are we not looking here at knowledge of what the psyche is, and how it comes about, and works, and does that bind anymore than it frees, or is it more in the nature of seeing a danger. In the same way I am also knowledge of something called sensation, recording, memory but does that perpetuate me?
Psychologists and philosophers have studied this, some dedicate their lives to the study. What does it mean, how does it work. They have technical knowhow - they know what to do in case of this or that.
This accumulated knowledge does nothing in terms of freedom from the self - in fact dependance on knowledge is the movement of self.
If insight does not bring immediate silence, it is not insight. If knowledge is the basis for my point of view, more questions, or dogma - this is not freedom from the known.
If insight does not bring relief and clarity, it is not insight. If there is still pain and fear and desire or aversion - this is just interpretation, just the self in action.
A spectacular psychological death cannot be provoked, it may arise within a particular context of psyche and circumstance, which is beyond our control. But the moment to moment death of each thought, may well be available to all of us - its less spectacular - but its essential as a moment where the dominance of conditioning, at least for an instant is lessened.
Don’t underestimate single thoughts, they contain me, my parents, humanity, mammals and more - they are millions of years of conditioning expressing themselves.
I would question whether they have done anything of the kind. I don’t know about the so called ancients who existed before the advent of modern society, but any brain identifying as psychologist or philosopher and functioning as part of the mainstream, consensus reality, doesn’t have a clue.
If the accumulation of knowledge is a concern for me, I will look at recording and why that is, and if needs be, I will look at sensation, and why that is. If recording is occurring without any conscious awareness on my part, until there is memory or knowledge, by which point recording already is, then recording will make for knowledge whether I intend it or not. Why should I be concerned about knowledge of any kind occurring and not recording?
Do I really say to myself, I’d better not put aside all my distractions and look right into the heart of fear, because if there isn’t a total insight, I may generate knowledge?
I don’t think it does. I have knowledge based upon sensation and memory that an apple tastes sweet and a lemon, sour. That’s not creating the ‘me’. K said that the ‘me’ is created when there’s desire for the pleasant sensation to be repeated. I want MORE. I become attached to the idea of my favorite dessert for example …or a favorite beer or wine. I’ve watched this in myself many times, I must admit. This attachment is a result of and escape from fear and/or conflict. I had a bad day at my job and I look forward to coming home to something pleasurable…my favorite beer…a favorite meal…my favorite sports team on TV. If that’s denied, then there’s suffering.
So would you agree there can be technical knowledge about the formation of self, which is not psychological knowledge that self is as part if its continued existence, and which the brain needs to know, if it is to understand its predicament? Krishnamurti repeatedly pointed out the need for self knowledge.
The self wants to hold on to a concept that can be used as a tool to further its advancement - freedom from the self is not advancement of the self.
Regarding knowledge and the self :
Faced with the words Islam and prophet, different people react in different ways, depending on who they are. A muslim would react in a specific way because of what they know. What they know being who they are. The self being the protection and advancement of who they are.
Faced with the word Psychiatry we all also react differently. Our reaction depends on who we are - who we are being what we know. The self being the movement of protection of the knower.
Our question is not about how to improve, but about whether we are completely enslaved by ourselves. Whether we are the puppets of what we know.
PS - self knowledge is not something that is gained over time - nor is there any data, nor concept that will set the self free.
PPS - Can I get some feedback : does the above sound complex ? or are the ideas simple? But obviously wrong maybe?
Yes, I agree…self knowledge…yes. K. said, that ‘thought is conflict’. Talking about psychological thought of course. If I truly see this and understand it through insight, it’s what we’re calling self knowledge. But this can be a barrier to further looking free of all knowing I would think. WE must look anew each time, at ‘what is’ which is always changing, right?
They are neither simple nor complex, and they are neither right nor wrong. I see them as elements of understanding tossed into a big stock pot in a sense to see what they may add or draw by way of response.
The elements I would add are: self cannot halt sensation, and it plays no part in recording in any conscious sense, which is more like dialysis performed by the kidneys, with memory as knowledge as the outcome. So knowledge is not anything I can put a stop to, but once self is established it can hijack the process and use it to make more of itself, which means the brain is continually occupied. This may be the circular enslavement you describe.
There is also a thing about why use words at all, why bother communicating anything, which is to say, collate any more knowledge at all, except there’s no true non-doing to be had here. Even the notion of people reacting differently to words, or the notion of sitting quietly and watching things arise is all knowledge, but there is something to be said for this as knowledge, rather than ignorance of it all, as that only ever means being in deeper, rather than imagining one is not in it at all, as per thought’s great line in not being, just because it knows how to mimic silence, or the self’s marvellous rendition of non-self, which its had a very long time to perfect.
I consider that knowledge forms regardless of what kind of knowledge it is considered to be, while any looking, notwithstanding the effect of conditioning, will be in that moment, and that moment only. So it will always be a new moment. I see self knowledge as a mechanism to bring the mind to the point once more where looking can take place, and as a form of mental hygiene, as mental fitness, which can facilitate deeper looking.