Perhaps you can explain this a little further Douglas?
Libertarian freedom is overrated, obviously. Elon Musk thinks he is free because he is rich and has a loud mouth, so he thinks he can do anything he likes. But that kind of freedom is not very deep.
However, when you say that the emptying of the contents of consciousness is overrated, first of all how do you know this? (as I doubt you know what that freedom even is); and second of all, what is prompting you to say this (i.e. what is your reasoning process here)?
Or have I misunderstood your question/intention completely?
But are you sure you know what true empty spaciousness is? If it is truly empty of the contents of consciousness then there can be no memory of suffering with which to compare it.
It’s difficult to grasp what you are wanting to say without a clear context.
The thread question is about our relationship with the world. Are we only related to other people whose contents of consciousness are similar to our own? Or is human consciousness one inseparable whole, right from the beginning (as they go onto discuss after the 57 second YouTube clip shared above)?
Is this what you are talking about?
Or are you referring to what we were saying above may take place when the contents of consciousness are emptied? - Meaning that the word ‘relationship’ being used here refers to the IMAGE we may have of this emptying/emptiness?
Which context fits best what you are wanting to say?
When we are feeling more joyful/pleasure in any action, there is no feeling/necessity of this “empty spaciousness”, but only when there is sufferings/frustration, the “freedom” and “emptiness” are given importance.
Here, he points out,
If you see carefully, he says "Electricity cannot actually exist without the proximity of the dirt and the sky … ".
He is of the view that, we give much importance for “emptiness” in relationship as if it is necessary, but what if it might not, and the Relationship itself is Being even in the presence of those Contents (like Electricity in the presence of Dirt - the thing he pointed out), by not giving importance/value to it instead of emptying it.
The desire for Emptying only felt at times of sufferings, and so felt to be overrated, and might not necessary and one could have true relationship just in the presence of those contents without giving value to it.
Are you indirectly referring here to the Madhyamaka doctrine of dependent-origination? Namely that whatever exists (or apparently exists) exists only in the context of relations between entities that themselves lack any true essence?
Yes that sounds right (this is same thing by Nagarjuna that Rick mentioned yesterday?)
In terms of human experience, the World would be the relationship between the images projected by our brains. (and we presume some unknown input from the actual world we suppose must exist absent those images)
Yes, Rick was talking about the MMK on another thread. This could be interesting, but is it directly related to what we have been discussing on this thread?
From the sound of it you are suggesting something along the lines of: the world we feel we experience is merely a projection of our collective images, so all that exists is the web of images and image-making.
This is quite different from what we have been talking about so far. Maybe you could propose it as a new thread?
Related to this, I was going to ask people what questions they have to discuss - by which I mean, what are the areas of K’s teachings that people are still vague or doubtful about, or do not understand at all?
I’m still wondering why, if the content of consciousness for all humans is similar (desire, fear, greed, lust, anger, envy, etc.), why isn’t it all the same thing? Why doesn’t the brain see its content for what it is?
I think it must be a matter of perception Inquiry.
Later on in the video (a clip of which I shared above) Krishnamurti says to Bohm that to understand or have a feeling for the wholeness of humanity, the wholeness of human consciousness, meditation is necessary.
By mentioning meditation I understand Krishnamurti to be saying that it requires a shift in perception, a non-ordinary expansion of one’s usual awareness of the world.
Maybe it is a shift in perception comparative to that which takes place for some astronauts when they view the earth from outer space for the first time.