Good analysis. You describe well a picture of what happens or might happen. But thinking about it, a few things are missing here. Love and intelligence for instance. Freedom from the known or from possession is not a goal per se or a valuable state which will make us whole. Freedom from the known is functional to the awakening of intelligence, without which life is futile and senseless. Same thing with freedom from possession: not attaching ourselves to anything or any person we can discover love which gives a sense to our relationships and our whole life.
Being perpetually dissatisfied shows lack of love and so an impossibility to really enjoy life. When you love it’s not so important whether you possess or not certain things and you don’t need to get rid of them. Living is being in relationships and if I have a dog, for instance, I’ll have to take care of it. This implies some nuisances of course, but it’s part of the game of life. If you don’t want the burden of relationships then you isolate yourself from others or the world and this is not living.
I may be wrong but to me its seems that your interpretation and Inquiry’s one are not antithetical but rather complimentary. Both can be valid and probably are.
But the problem is another one in my view. K. mission was not that of giving answers or describing the nature of the things, what we are, etc. but rather to invite us to discover those things for ourselves and by ourselves. I. e. be a light to yourself. In trying to “interpret” what he meant we are falling into the trap which all religions have fallen in: that of depicting with words something which is beyond words and so creating a theology and a number of beliefs… let’s talk of something we have had direct experience and avoid to indulge in speculation.
I made a search with Krishnamurti.org and another web site too but could not find that conversation with Mr Stamp. From where you copied it? You said it was in the old forum so we can’t have access to it now. Perhaps you stored it in your HD?
Anyway I have no motives to doubt about its authenticity. K. said a lot of strange things especially when he was young. “The unadorned naked awareness that is always there, rarely heeded, is what you always have been, always will be”. This is not a news, it’s just what a number of other Indian gurus have said. I’m fine with the idea that also K. stated that.
K. strived not to create a new religion but sometimes he forgot about this and betrayed himself in making religious affirmations which could be turned into beliefs. We must not forget that is not the way to truth.
This quote by Stamp was from his autobiography as well as posted on kinfonet…it was a meeting with K shortly before he died. I see that there is a video of Stamp at Brockwood speaking about his relationship to K fairly recently
I can’t watch it because of tech problem here but look forward to seeing it.
Thanks for the answer and the video. Actually I remember having watched that video long ago, but I can’t remember what he said. A good chance to watch it again.
Don’t you think it’s much better to go and look for yourself rather than trying to understand what another person has said? You have a brain, are you not aware of its needs and reactions?
I’ve pondered it thoroughly and, unlike others here, I don’t feel compelled to draw a conclusion. It’s just one more of the many things Krishnamurti said that can’t be explained without interpreting.
Sorry Inquiry, but you didn’t see my point. Look, it’s very simple. K. talked about YOUR brain, right? Therefore who can know better than you how your brain works? Why bother about interpretation of someone else words? Either you don’t feel any need for security or you do. In the first case you can reply to Dan, no I don’t agree with K. or with you, because I don’t feel this need. Finish!
But we are talking of simple things which each one of us can and should know! We are talking about the need for security, I can’t believe you don’t know what it is - we had another discussion on this topic remember? As I said either you feel it or you don’t, why this mistery?
Let’s take another thing. Don’t you feel the need to be loved, appreciated, cheerished? Do you need a neuroscientist to tell you if you do? The need for security is as simple as that but of course there could be the possibility that one is not aware of it. No problem.
One can do and abstain from doing things in the name of security and avoid a lot of suffering, but ultimately there is no security. We are all subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Take every precaution and be vigilant, but don’t be foolish enough to pretend you can avoid loss or catastrophe.
In that video with PJ K describes the moment when one faces an incredible loss…he described “staying” with that moment and realizing that the ending of that relationship had come…not letting any thoughts to arise or feeling just to be with the fact of that ‘ending’
When (and if) one wants to explore a territory, one needs to start from where one is, not from the destination. Similarly if we want to know ourselves (and so human life) we must start from what we are now and not from what we’d like to be.
And this forum, a Krishnamurti based forum, is meant just for that exploration.
From your replies it’s evident you are not interested in this kind of exploration but only to dispense us your wisdom. We don’t need oracles, Kimo, nor astrological advices.
Your reply could be appropriate in another context and from another kind of person, a person who has personally attained that wisdom and put himself/herself in the role of a teacher. If one of us here put himself/herself in that role is not only a sign of arrogance but makes a fool of himself too.
We were discussing Krishnamurti’s statement that “the brain must have complete security”, and I said that no one present when he made that statement asked what he meant. How can there be complete security for the brain when there is no evidence that complete security is possible?
What did K mean by this? I still don’t know, but others, such as yourself, have crafted answers and explanations they find satisfying, while I remain puzzled by the statement.
It seems to me the dispensers of wisdom here are those who would rather pretend to know what they can’t admit to being uncertain of.
I may be mistaken, but I have no recollection of Krishnamurti speaking of “essence”. It was not a word he used much, if at all. Essence is more often projected by the observer than to have actual existence.
Who is “pretending” to be certain about ‘anything’ here? Exploration isn’t pretending. You say you’re “puzzled” by something that was said…well dig into it. Maybe you’ll present something helpful. Maybe not.
As I think K said somewhere, that the only real security is to ‘be as nothing’ (not-a-thing). But being conditioned to believe that I am something, I construct as safe an environment , physically and psychologically as I can. I accumulate things as well as beliefs. Shakily enclosed in that false reality, I (brain) function. Psychologically I want to ‘become’ this that or whatever and of course all of that physically and psychologically can , and often does fall apart. So yes of course there is no complete security in any of that. That’s why we’re so crazy! The only complete security is when we are “nothing” which is the ending of ‘self’. This makes sense to me but ‘certainty’, no. But all this can be observed in oneself, the brain’s striving for comfort, safety, security.
If you were “nothing” now, and I asked you what it feels like, what difference it makes, etc., what would you say? I ask because I can’t imagine being nothing and you seem quite comfortable with the notion.
I can imagine being “nothing” in the eyes of others; being someone of such lowly status as to barely exist, but the “nothing” you’re referring to is unimaginable, so I wonder why you stick with the idea. That K said it is not a good enough reason to believe it or repeat it if you can’t grasp its meaning.
