The state Krishnamurti called choiceless awareness is unreachable via intention, no matter how subtle and smart that intention may be. Intention is like the poison in the poisoned tree metaphor, its presence poisons the tree and all of its fruit.
At worst, this can lead to paralysis and despair. You sit around bemoaning the fact that choiceless awareness is not happening for you, and there is no way to make it happen. It’s like waiting for a knight in shining armor to rescue you, a miracle.
Is ‘tilling the soil’ for choiceless awareness to blossom just another form of poison?
This is your interpretation of what someone has said. You’ve drawn a conclusion that conforms to what you believe.
I’m not “bemoaning” - I’m stating a fact. How ever choiceless awareness is, the conditioned brain reacts to it, “choosing” its own version of what awareness reveals.
I don’t know if there is or isn’t a “way” to “make it happen”. But I don’t see how the brain’s conditioning can be anything but what it is. Do you?
I’m not waiting for anything. I’m not on a quest, and as you know, questing is more about waiting than anything else because it’s all about the time between questing and mission accomplished.
Thankyou for posting your naked reaction. You’re usually two well clothed to tell what you’re concealing.
Well you know how I feel, everything we say (and quote) here is opinion-story. “Open your mouth and you’re wrong!” kinda thing. But there are things that are closer to and further from the truth. For me ‘waiting for a knight in shining armor’ seems close-ish, for you far-ish. May be interesting and illuminating to explore why.
I’m sorry to hear that. It doesn’t speak well of you.
Who or what might this knight be? Isn’t Krishnamurti enough of a knight? Everything I say is based on what he said.
I have opined that the brain can’t undergo the radical transformation until the brain is ready for it because it seems to me that the self-center has to be in decline. I may be wrong about this, but if the brain is expending less energy maintaining the status quo, it’s “gathering” energy, to use K’s word.
What I mean is the idea of waiting for a knight in shining armor seems close-ish to the truth for me, to what’s going on for (certain) Krishnamurtians, I don’t mean closer to my truth.
I am sharing a theory based on my experience in Krishnamurti circles: People who believe there is nothing they can do to see the truth, and that in fact anything they do will have the opposite result, keep the truth hidden, may get paralyzed and desperate. A possible consequence of this is to hope with all your might that you will be ‘graced’ with intention-free seeing of truth. I am using the metaphor of waiting for your knight in shining armor to hoping to be graced. There are plenty of weird goofy stories playing in my noggin, but not this story.
Should the above not clarify what I mean, GPT may help:
GPT
Your theory highlights a powerful tension in the search for truth, especially within Krishnamurti’s philosophy. In Krishnamurti circles, the notion that no deliberate action or effort can lead to truth can indeed create a kind of existential paralysis. People may find themselves in a situation where, despite their deep desire to understand or “see” truth, they feel trapped by the belief that any attempt will only obscure it further. This leads to the hope of being “graced” by some external or internal force that will, without any personal effort, bring clarity.
The metaphor of waiting for a knight in shining armor captures that passive, almost helpless state—where one sits in anticipation of being “rescued” by truth, instead of actively engaging with it. The idea of being graced, much like waiting for the knight, implies an external intervention, reinforcing the idea that truth is something that arrives unexpectedly, without personal agency.
This paradox can indeed create a sense of desperation. Instead of striving, one might cling to the idea of grace—a surrendering of control, but with an underlying hope that grace will arrive as a kind of reward. This can lead to a perpetual waiting, a passive form of seeking where the “seeker” is caught in a loop of hoping for effortless revelation.
You may have encountered someone who has this attitude, but I’m not aware of anyone who feels this way. If I met one of these people, I would assume they’re just not interested in K’s teaching, but not wanting to admit it, assume this passive approach you describe.
Krishnamurti spoke often of the need for self-knowledge, which is neither “striving” nor waiting, but something one does for its own sake.
The fact that we are slaves to the known - ie this whole movement of self and suffering - and that seeing this whole process will free us from the harm of this primitive process - is confusing.
My fear (which I call hope) being the totality of my experience, thus all that I know, all precious - we are puzzled by the idea that there might be a different more complete picture.
So we think of non-fear as something separate from us, something magical that might save us.
In fact all that is being asked is that we see the whole movement of desire rather than just be blinded by my desire for pleasure.
Yes - if tilling the soil is just the usual movement of hope. If however, you have been freed from this selfish need to secure one’s security, to accumulate power and pleasure, then there is no need to till the soil, for you are already filled with life.
Marxism theorizes workers understanding the whole process of their enslavement will bring about revolt and things shall change for the better. Oops. Human nature wins!
Krishnamurti’s theosophy years were filled with hope and intention. He eventually saw what he understood to be the futility of these. But would he have ‘gotten IT’ without having gone through the hope-intention journey? Perhaps we have to fail over and over and over until we see the light?
Do you understand the theory, the model? Logically it holds - in actuality (aka experientially in real life) it holds - everything indicates it holds - so I must ask again : do you understand how understanding a problem = problem no longer exists?
nb. maybe if you consider yourself trying to solve a rubik’s cube, as opposed to someone who clearly sees how a rubik’s cube works - one person is facing a problem, the other is not.
How so? when did workers (and the society at large) understand the whole process of their society?
The belief that I am being unfairly treated will cause a reaction sure. Why are you bringing up this stupid argument? Does arguing, however badly, constitute “tilling the soil” in your view?
nb. sorry, maybe you are doing your, best - why wouldn’t you? The fact that Marxists believed their model was true is not the same as actually having a clear understanding of their situation. Just as believing in religion x does not mean I am any closer to seeing clearly - quite the opposite.
This seems oversimplified. Climate change is a problem, we understand it well, it still exists. The self is a problem, understanding it deeply may leave it intact. Fear is a problem, seeing the whole of it is not a guarantee for ending it.
I agree the normal workers did not necessarily see the whole. But others did. Even for them the problem did not go away.
For the understanding of a problem to end the problem as it plays out in real life, the understanding needs to go beyond the realm of the rational, logical, reasoned. Is this the kind of understanding you’re talking about?