After decades of studying K’s teaching and observing itself in the light of those words, does the brain illuminate itself and realize what it is doing, or does it just become a Krishnamurti scholar? Does this brain know more about Krishnamurti’s teaching than it knows about itself?
If this brain knows it is conditioned to be reactively aware rather than choicelessly (and perhaps joyously) aware, why doesn’t it act on that knowledge?
You have used this phrase many times. On the other thread you also wrote:
If the conditioned brain did not react to awareness
What does this phrase mean?
Do we react to being aware? Or are we simply aware or unaware?
We can react to things that we are aware of, or react to people when we are not fully aware of what we are doing. But I don’t see how we are reactively aware, or react to awareness.
I react to what I’m aware of when what’s happening seems to violate or vindicate my notion of what-should/should-not-be.
How would I know if I’m “unaware”?
I feel this sentence is unnecessarily over-complicated.
All you are saying here - as far as I understand it - is that we react to things we like or don’t like.
Is this all that you mean by saying that we “react to awareness”, or that we are “reactively aware”?
Somebody may point it out to you.
Or you may become aware of your lack of awareness through the conflict it brings; by becoming aware of the incoherence, the disorder in yourself (which is the consequence of a lack of awareness).
This is an interesting question.
The teachings are a mirror 
to help us see ourselves for what we are.
If one doesn’t see oneself in the mirror , but only words, an intellectual grid of ideas, then one isn’t using the mirror correctly. In which case it is probably worth putting the mirror aside.
What is important is seeing, understanding, oneself, not Krishnamurti’s teachings.
Yes. I’m sorry that wasn’t clear.
Then we can rephrase your original question, which was:
Rephrased, your question is:
If the brain knows it is reactive, why doesn’t it act on this knowledge?
The answer is:
there is a difference between intellectually knowing something, and actually being aware of something.
Actual awareness acts in the present moment. Whereas knowledge is always from the past.
Intellectually knowing something is one thing, and direct perception is another. The two are as far apart as darkness is from light.
Yes, I’ve known this for a long time. I just thought the brain might be more intelligent than its default mode of consciousness, which is only one of its functions.
Surely the brain can only be as intelligent as it actually is?
If it is caught up in a reaction, it is not intelligent.
But if one can be aware of one’s reaction as it is occurring, then there is a possibility of intelligence acting through one’s awareness.
We know that psychedelics change the way the brain’s neural networks communicate with each other, allowing for an awareness of how reactively, conditionally, the brain ordinarily operates.
So the brain can know how unintelligent, how reactive, it is when it isn’t operating in the usual way…the way it considers normal.
Putting psychedelics aside, the question for us is can we actually - not theoretically, intellectually, etc - see, be aware, perceive, a reaction as it is occurring?
This is the only relevant question.
I don’t doubt that it can by not operating in the usual default way, deferring to the past, but being more wholistically aware.
Inquiry,
I feel you overcomplicate things unnecessarily - both in your speech, and in your thinking. Are you aware of this tendency? Or do you feel I am saying something rude?
My feeling is that this over-complicating of things gets in your way.
You’re being rude if you can’t show my needless complication by demonstrating a simpler way of putting it. Show me my error and I’ll thank you for it. Tell me what my mistake is without making it clear does no one any good.
My feeling is that this over-complicating of things gets in your way.
That may be true. Please show me what you mean.
I’m surprised you are not aware of a tendency to over-complicate sentences? I’m honestly not being malicious or rude when I point this out.
I feel I do this with many of the replies I make to your posts - which is why I thought I would point it out to you. I’m not trying to insult you.
For example, in this thread alone you have made statements like
I feel these sentences are not clear. That’s all. I am not wanting to insult you or annoy you. I am just sharing a difficulty I have in understanding your communications.
For myself I find that the more simply I am able to communicate, the simpler my thinking has to be. So there is a benefit in expressing oneself simply. That’s all. - Please don’t throw the kitchen sink at me!
I’m sorry you find those statements over-complicated. I’ll try to keep things simpler.
So there is a benefit in expressing oneself simply. That’s all. - Please don’t throw the kitchen sink at me!
Okay, I’ll just throw a sponge at you for writing “That’s all”, and adding more.