Criticism of ourself or of another is the ‘authority of selfishness’.
One is aware and sees that that desire for complete mutation / enlightenment is part and parcel of I /me. It is a game / trap ego often plays to strengthen itself.
What one wanted to explore is why over thousands of years and among billions and billions of humans, there are only few who had a state of mind that K talked about. K’s words that if you live the teachings, PERHAPS you MAY touch that, points to some external factor beyond the living of K’s teaching.
This is what one was trying to get at. What could be that factor ? Is it complete insight that is beyond brain and can not be invited as per K, The FACTOR. Is it the reason that only few “got it” .If it is so, there is no use exploring about it as it may not be possible as it may be beyond human brain. That is why one said forget about complete mutation.
Is having no choice being forced?
the idea being that when we see evil clearly we shall recoil.
The conditioned brain is itself evil because it is self-centered and self-deceiving, so seeing “evil clearly” is not always possible…especially when it’s one’s own evil.
Not every automatic response is a mistake, mindless, or harmful. So If I’m aware of my every automatic response, every reaction, I know when one is mindless or harmful, and it has no influence, no effect.
Why are there just a few truly remarkable people in all walks of life? Competent, intelligent, talented, skilled people abound. But the true outliers are very rare. Krishnamurti and Buddha may have been geniuses in living the way Bach and Beethoven were geniuses in music. These kinds of humans are flukes, black swans. Hoping to attain what they attained may be more harmful than helpful?
1 Like
What is this ‘hoping to attain’? Aren’t you confusing all this with the pursuits of the self. To become something? A mini Krishnamurti? As he said , “the house is burning” …if that is the case…do you have to be a ‘genius’ to get out?
1 Like
Hoping to attain enlightenment is hoping in vain because you can only hope for what you know and can imagine, and enlightenment is not more or greater knowing as we know it - it’s awakening to what one didn’t and couldn’t have known without enlightenment.
1 Like
The question is perhaps whether Krishnamurti has attained anything. We take it for granted when someone speaks in this way about questions of life - as an achievement, as a possession of that person.
If you take his statement: “Truth is always new” there is no one who has achieved anything, no end point, no arrival at an everlasting truth.
1 Like
Relevant to this ‘attainment’ question, I think, is this phenomenon that some astronauts experience looking at planet Earth from space. They are struck by the ‘oneness’ of the planet; the absence of any borders etc. They sense the need for a ‘planetary consciousness’ rather than an economic one ,say, being dominant…it seems that having this view from space of the entire globe with its thin fragile atmosphere makes them ‘lose’ their normal limited, divided, personal reality perspective, even if only temporarily.
The limited, narrow view ‘gives way’ to the larger one. Not a matter of ‘attainment’, rather one of personal loss? The myth of ‘individuality’?
2 Likes
Hoping to attain a state one does not know about except as concept / idea is nothing but continuity of I /me. But it does not mean one should not question possibility of leading to such a state by living K’s teachings. One was just exploring by questioning not hoping for such a state. Is it being suggested that such questioning / enquiry is trick of I/me to perpetuate itself ?
To “live K’s teachings” is just emulating Krishnamurti.
Krishnamurti spoke to conditioned brains of “the awakening of intelligence”, and the conditioned brain reacts by imagining awakening as the most wonderful thing ever, the ultimate dream, and forms its idea, its image, of being awakened.
But was it Krishnamurti’s intention to incite the conditioned brain to get excited about the prospect of awakening? Or did Krishnamurti know what the conditioned brain would do with the idea of awakening, and how it might be more inclined to be aware of what it is doing?
The conditioned brain lacks the intelligence to be aware of what it is doing from moment to moment, whereas the awakening brain is aware of its conditioned tendency to favor thinking over awareness.
Sitting in that chair looking at the monitor, there’s only a body and its thinking process,
1 Like
It’s the human condition, what drives us, a potential source of great mischief!
And yet I’d wager pretty much everyone who is enlightened hoped passionately to be enlightened during their pre-enlightenment days. Failure (on many levels) seems to go along with the spiritual path. Fall down six times, get up seven.
He often referred to himself as nothing, nobody. How can nothing-nobody attain anything?
I’m sure this happens, it’s one of the sneaky ways the I reifies itself. Identifying as the I is like being possessed by a thought form (ego-I) of your own making and having your strings pulled by it. It’s a kind of crazy way to live!
Why wager when possibly none of us knows if enlightenment is real?
If, however, if there are enlightened brains alive and well today, would they want to be identified as such? It seems to me they would use an art form to awaken brains rather than addressing the subject directly.
If it is so, what K meant by " if they live the teaching, perhaps they may touch tthat "
To be aware moment to moment, does it require intelligence
Or
living moment to moment awakens intelligence
Or
Awareness moment to moment is itself an act of intelligence and if so can animals be considered to be intelligent
May be it all depends by what one means by intelligence.
1 Like
To try “live K’s teachings” ultimately amounts to effort. Like trying to encompass a worldview through a manual building process of the mind. Only reason he was free is because he really had no desire yet we’re attracted to his teachings in the exact opposite fashion he suggested, he wanted people to question themselves for real reasons we lost our sensitivity to. He was an orphan prophet, he lived the spirit of God but didn’t realize it in mind. He had deep care for the world and that selflessness allowed him to be the way he was, bliss was just an after effect of something real. While he described what having no duality was like, it doesn’t make the one we’re in to be irrelevant. Maybe we are to understand the duality rather than desire to transcend it. If it’s about attaining a state you might lose the entire point, but maybe his teachings actually are for the few like him who have no natural drive or ego.
Yes. The brain is stupefied by its constant recreation of itself.
living moment to moment awakens intelligence
Intelligence is the absence of dishonesty when there’s no need for comic relief, and is a display of dishonesty when there is, e.g., “It’s easy to quit smoking! I do it all the time!”
Awareness moment to moment is itself an act of intelligence
Intelligence is not what it does, but what it doesn’t do