If you look at what K has said from a certain angle, it can be very contradictory to ourselves because we see it as a way to benefit. Like when he proposes an empty mind being peaceful, but also tells us that we shouldn’t be trying to obtain an empty mind. Which is true. But that process creates confusion, because the very act of identifying a proposition/solution does not seem to manifest the negation of it. Because it really is only through negation, not the recognition of anything. What I’m saying is, it’s very easy to be PERCEIVING what he says to be a solution AT ALL which it very clearly is NOT. You might say, “ah yes there is obviously no solution”, while also being unaware that you believe there is one. I understand it’s not technically “his fault”, Krishnamurti can’t control our inner reaction to anything. But unknowingly, his teachings have the capacity to do more damage than good… depending on ourselves. So read that very carefully, im not saying he didn’t understand or didn’t already tell us that he can’t help us. But I am saying that I don’t need any of this.
Don’t need any of what?
Maybe you have explained yourself somewhat in your OP, which I would summarise as : I don’t need all this contradiction and confusion.
Am I following you correctly?
No, I mean I don’t need to listen to K, ever again. Don’t overthink what I mean by that though, please… the minutia of it isn’t important. As James pointed out before there are subtleties to be aware of, like what I’m trying to say here. Not just the subtlety of having a proposition without being able to approach it directly. If the only context behind the words is yourself looking inward then obviously it’s got nothing to do with memorizing it, its completely directionless and can be very subtle. You see it now or not… which MUST mean that I don’t need to hear what he’s said, ever again. Besides, I’ve heard it already
When K comes along and tells you that “you don’t exist” and yet at the same time “you are the world”, that’s a bombshell dropped into the lap of the ego. What takes place after that is all our stories.
Hi Dan. Can you tell me what you understand by “you don’t exist” in the K sense?
The you the me is a “bundle of memories”. No thinker, no experiencer, no observer separate from the growing and diminishing ‘bundle’. The ‘you’ ‘me’ is a trick of thought. Pondering this is very interesting. How can it be that I don’t “exist”? When I feel so real. Is it true?, etc
Something that occurred to me is that the sensation of I/me existing has nothing to compare it to in the animal world. We take the sensation of us existing as fact because there is nothing to refute it. It’s a product of thought that ‘I am’. And it would be alright but this self image has and is causing so much suffering, cruelty, selfishness, greed, bloodshed that whoever saw through it had to speak out about it. That’s what K did. He sowed the ‘seed’ that “You don’t exist”.
Speculation and the tricks of the sneaky monkey,
It is one thing to understand what is reality by actually seeing what isn’t real after having observed within by insight; it is quite another thing to read a phrase like, “You don’t exist,” or even that the “self”, the “me” isn’t real - which leads to the belief that originated in the East that everything is illusion - maya - allowing this phrase and ideas like that to enter into a theoretical series of thoughts in the brain about the nature of reality. Until one actually discovers whether or not this is true, this remains speculation, which is an entertaining escape from looking within, which actually ends up in reinforcing the “me”, the “I”. So then, thought (that really clever little monkey) will repeat what it thinks is or isn’t reality without ever having to bother about looking within. Neat trick if one can think it. The issue is that speculation leads to adding more beliefs to an already conditioned brain, burying “sorrow” under a mountain of thoughts.
But what if what you are doing is looking at the concept of it? “The me doesn’t exist” then you wonder how mysterious that is. Is it a trick of thought? Or are you just changing how you see yourself by asserting your identity to be a trick of thought? If you are pondering it then you’re reflecting on an ideal, but when K talks about “seeing” and observation he’s not talking about that
All your questions are good. If it touches you, it has to be questioned, investigated with whatever approach you take but there are no guarantees about any of this. No map, no guide, just you…the ‘you’ that doesn’t exist!
Ok, thanks for that Dan.
What makes sense to me is K’s description of moments when the “me” doesn’t exist, whether it be while observing a villager in India or a tree in a forest. Do we all have moments where there is no “me”, no separation, no division between “me” and another living thing?
There may be these moments but obviously they don’t have the force to shatter this ‘you’ structure or ‘center’. So it continues and meanwhile, as he said “The house is burning”!
Perhaps the brain has to be young and pliable, less conditioned? But then the young brain is consumed with having experience, pleasure, entertainment,etc and by the time it comes, if ever, to regard this situation seriously, its already become old in its turn and mired in its traps.
You don’t exist because you don’t know how to live. That is what K says.
I’m glad we’ve cleared that one up.
The approach of one’s death focuses the brain somewhat. But is it by then too late for its freedom? That remains in question. Does it have the ‘resiliency’ to pull itself out of all the traps? The traps that give it a sense of security?
Can Intelligence awaken in the brain at any stage?
Yes, because it doesn’t explode and you don’t dare do anything to set it off. All you can do is remain with it quietly and without making a move.
Do we know if it is a trick, or just an honest mistake due to confusion?
I can say and believe that “I” don’t actually exist because I can say and believe that I is a figment of the brain’s imagination, so until/unless the brain realizes what it is actually doing, I exist.
If ‘you’ insist…,…
I think we do but they’re too short-lived, too momentary, to undermine the illusion of me, separation, division.