When all forms of intention are absent, what happens?
How would I know? Arenât I intention?
Maybe the answer can come from not-you?
I joke around a bunch, so you might think Iâm being silly. But Iâm not! (Not on purpose anyway.) Is there a non-I entity (process, movement) that can respond to: What happens when all forms of intention are absent?
I answered, âI donât knowâ to your question, and I was notified that my answer was too short âŚ
There is some blockage apart from the complexity or simplicity of the concepts. Its some strangeness that was apparent from the very first time we spoke - at first I thought I was speaking to a young californian dopehead, then as I got to know you a bit better I thought you might be highly influenced by philosophical romanticism, but obviously its not as simple as that.
Of course, we mustnât ignore the possibility that I have difficulty explaining simple ideas plainly.
My reading is you rely quite strongly (though not exclusively) on logic and reason and rational thinking and argumentation in your explorations. Logic prevailing is a biggie for you, way bigger than for me. When I feel pushed into a corner by logic, my irrational side powers up. Itâs at this point we fall into our flavor of cul de sac.
First question : do you care if what you believe is correct or true? As in, do you want to believe in more true things and less false things?
If not, we can stop there.
If so, second question : how do you determine whether something is true or false? What is the best method for checking whether something is true or not?
For example : will I be squashed by a speeding bus if I stand in front of it? How can I tell? Is a circle a square, or not? How do you tell?
I imagine that you might say that this kind of stuff is not important, and that its the stuff that logic and evidence cannot help us with that is of importance. This of course is special pleading (a fallacy) unless you can explain why it should be put into a special case. (3rd question : do we agree that âgloobigloobi bliurgghâ - or any meaningless nonsense, is almost never a possible explanation?)
Also unless we know nothing at all about the subject we are concerned with, we can still use logic (to check whether we are making sense or just babbling nonsense) and if we really know absolutely nothing at all about a subject we have no reason to say we know something about it.
I am driven to get IT = grok and coincide with the true nature of reality.
Feeling, intuition, reason, contemplation are my main tools.
Assuming the gobbledygook is truly meaningless. But itâs tricky since meaning is in the beholderâs eye. What I find meaningful you could find meaningless.
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. Itâs like waiting for a knight in shining armor to rescue you, a miracle.
Is âtilling the soilâ for choiceless awareness to blossom just another form of poison?
Would despair also be there if you didnât believe that there was something else (better)?
Thatâs what âchoiceâ is all about, the supposed possibility of making a decision.
If you think about it, you have not chosen to be in a desperate situation.
Our habit of thinking that everything we think up must also be achievable has led to this.So why should it be possible to end up in a situation free of choice that someone tells you about?
Krishnamurti never spoke of becoming free, but of being free.
Maybe we can be free enough to look at our current situation without resistance - that would be something new, perhaps?
2 Likes
Waiting for the knight to rescue you (i.e. to be âgracedâ by Truth) is a trap people who see there is no way to realize Truth, no path, no evolution are at risk of falling into. Itâs the dark side of surrendering to what-is, wrong surrendering. But just because you can fall into a trap doesnât mean you will. Stay ever vigilant!
Only very young children and lunatics think that everything they think up is achievable, and your question, âwhy should it be possible to end up in a situation free of choiceâ? isnât clear.
Are you asking if itâs possible to be free of yourself without choosing to be; to live without choosing who you are?
Where does the idea come from that you could be in a different state than you are (e.g. being choicelessly aware instead of choosing what to focus your attention on)?
Where does the idea of being able to achieve something in the psychic realm come from?
Isnât it a habit of thought, or as Krishnamurti called it âbecomingâ or âmovement in timeâ, to strive for something that is not now?
Itâs not just children and lunatics who do this, it seems to me to be something quite commonplace to fantasize about what could be.
So if we are in despair, because we cannot be choicelessly aware though we want to, why not look at that despair without choice?
2 Likes
When we are in despair, consciously or unconsciously, we instinctively move away from the despair: denial, escape, fantasy, problem-solving. Looking at the despair requires we intentionally choose to look. Choice is involved from the beginning.
Despair is the fact. Escaping it are the choices made to get away from it, not see it, not understand it, not face it. When the escapes stop, the âdespairâ is what is. There is no intention or choice, it is in front of your face. Then it can be understood for what it is. It can be seen throughâŚor we can come up with a new way to escape it.
Maybe itâs found to be just a âsensationâ?
1 Like
I understand what you mean (to the extent anyone can understand anyone else). Let us say you, for whatever reason, are not driven to escape from your despair. Your despair is there staring at you, no veils, no resistance. I see how there is no choice in experiencing the despair in this situation. But there is, I think, choice involved in understanding it, learning from it, harkening to it.
I find this question confusing. Are you asking why the brainâs content reacts to choiceless awareness?
Where does the idea of being able to achieve something in the psychic realm come from?
Isnât this a complicated way of asking, What is imagination?
isnât it a habit of thought, or as Krishnamurti called it âbecomingâ or âmovement in timeâ, to strive for something that is not now?
Striving to become something achievable is commonly known as ambition or aspiration. Striving to become something that is not achievable is what Krishnamurti called âbecomingâ.
So if we are in despair because we cannot be choicelessly aware though we want to, why not look at that despair without choice?
If Iâm in despair because I canât be choicelessly aware
Can I be choicelessly aware of my despair?
It seems to me that recognizing despair and naming it as such already has the character of an unconscious reaction. It is not a conscious choice, the feeling that arises due to a naming during the thought process of striving already has the desire for âproblem solvingâ in it.
The question seems to be why a rising feeling or mood is a problem that needs a solution in the first place. Feelings and moods are fleeting, why do we have to resist them? Or is it all so unconscious that we canât help it and therefore have no choice?
1 Like
Iâd say that the content of consciousness reacts to the content of consciousness, recognizes and names it, this causes problems, not choiceless awareness. To name âwhat isâ is a kind of choice, made by our content.
That is what we do, I guess.
We could ask what despair is, apart from the word?
âTo us, freedom means choice. Choice means confusion. You donât choose if youâre clear⌠itâs only the confused mind that chooses. Awareness takes place only when there is no choice or when youâre aware of all the conflicting choiceâŚâ . It is based on this idea that Krishnamurti comes up with âchoicelessâ awarenessâ, which in itself sounds contradictory. In fact, you donât have to be inevitably confused if you are to choose. It depends on the moment and the context. Saying youâre confused when youâre about to make a decision doesnât sound right. Also, saying that awareness is clarity and having the need to add the idea of choiceless to it is just redundant and makes one question whether after all awareness can also be confused awareness. One cannot judge oneâs behaviour by sticking to these expressions, that is what paralyses and makes one feel in distress and hopeless. Krishnamurti is about moving, digging, going deeply, itâs a matter of living intensity.
1 Like