What did Krishnamurti mean by “the significance of life” if it’s subjective? Regardless of personal beliefs and opinions about humanity, being human is the same for all humans, especially if one can see beyond one’s own experience and conditioning.
So what does that mean? If I didn’t choose to do what I just did, and I can see, after the fact, that it needed to be done, intelligence acted, not I. So does this mean that I have nothing to do with “right action” because thought is a function of intelligence and my function is to acknowledge what happens?
Surely we need more context? at least the whole sentence or paragraph please.
But whatever he meant, the importance or meaning (significance) of something is necessarily related to the mind that finds whatever (eg. life) important or meaningful.
This is the title of a book - probably chosen by an Editor - its significance is in its eye-catching properties
Something acted, you could call it intelligence or instinct or reflex. Or I guess it’s possible to see it as: There was action, without positing a doer?
I’d say thought serves intelligence, it’s one of intelligence’s tools. (Are you saying the same thing?) I gotta ask: Who is the ‘my’ in “and my function is …?”
I read the book but I can’t remember if the phrase was K’s or the publisher.
In any case, for me the question is whether “right action” is possible when meaning and significance are in the eye of the beholder. Someone may have no doubt that his action is “right” because he feels that he is not in control, not in charge, not acting willfully or for personal gain or gratification, but in accordance with intelligence.
1 Like
Thought that does nothing but acknowledge what happens.
I have no answer - My personal opinion is that “better action” results from a wider vision. If I can manage to lift my head up freely, without being totally submerged by my own fear and pride, and see the fear and pride in those around me, I have already gained a wider, less fragmented perspective. And my actions will be different (still of course conditioned by my being a social animal with a cultural intelligence, and any particular mutations and/or trauma)
So there is no “right” action, and K was just being absolutist when he used the phrase? With choiceless awareness and direct perception, one would think, it’s always clear what action, if any, is necessary or appropriate because what’s happening can’t be distorted by “cultural intelligence” and other conditioned responses.
Right action would be an all encompassing or non-existent self - aka love
So right action is not dependant on meaning or significance, its more of an automatic response in relation to what is - it is the play of relationship itself rather than something coming from any particular player.
1 Like
Good definition. It sweeps away the whole business of thought and discernment, leaving only the fundamental and immediate.