What has changed?

It’s going on 40 years since this Rishi Valley dialogue with Krishnamurti, Papul Jayakar, Achuyat Patwardhan and others. What has changed? World Population today exceeds 8 billion, not quite doubled since this dialogue in Rishi Valley. There are 27 current wars on this planet.

Pupul Jayakar (PJ): Krishnaji, for some years you have been speaking of the need for a new mind, a culture which will be able to deal with the problems which we face, not only in this country, but in the world, problems of growing cruelty, increasing violence, tremendous callousness, a disregard for human life and a growing distance between the human being and the sacred, the sacred dimension. If we go in this direction, annihilation seems inevitable. But how is this new mind, this new culture to come about?”…

K: And the fundamental question really is: what will change man? That’s the real question. Not an external agency, however divine or spiritual or some philosophical point of view, but I think man has to change himself,…” Have you ever looked with all your senses? | J. Krishnamurti (jkrishnamurti.org) This is an audio, but if you would like the transcript, you can get it off Youtube.

And few are doing it. So the only question is 'Am I ending my self?

What has changed?

There are all the things out there : oxygen, washing machines, hot and cold running water, dinosaurs and telephones etc… this seems to be changing all the time.

Then there is me, in here. This is obviously a near perfect tool, no need to change. Its like saying should we change this hammer into a saw or a screwdriver? Of course not, the hammer is a near perfect tool (nb. for banging in nails)

What the people need, is freedom from hammers - (not everything is a nail)

Yes, Bob and Macdougdoug, we have been seeing some changes in people’s diminished self-centeredness. There really is a lot of good in humanity. It’s the murderous ones who make the news. In this dialogue Krishnamurti goes on to say, man needs a different kind of brain, where brain cells change. If that is true, it might be good to keep up with some of the latest research on the brain, Be Brain Fit.

K:”–for a new civilization, for a new well-being of man, to be born out of this utter confusion and corruption and chaos in the world. At least—I may be wrong, but you need a different kind of brain, not genetically engineered, not a brain that has been conditioned parochially or religiously, in the ordinary sense of that word religion, but a brain that is really free from all the turmoil, conflict, misery, confusion, and the mess that human beings have made… That is, the brain is what is the whole centre of man—his nerves, his responses, his reactions, his nervous tension…his fears, his happiness, his brutality, it is all within the skull… So that brain is the centre, now, of man. He knows nothing about the other—mind—but within this brain we are trying to solve all our problems. Right?,That very centre is the movement of thought…. The centre is the self… the persona, the me, the self-interest. It is the self-interest that has conditioned the brain.”

Howdy - Damn & blast! The brain belongs of course to the sub-group of things that are “out there”. Which is due to my unfortunate use of the “in here/out there” imagery.

Using the “knower/known” dichotomy, the brain is part of the known.
Or with the dualistic “mind/matter” model, its part of matter.

So improving, or preserving the brain is part of the same materialistic (which is not a bad thing in itself - I like hot & cold running water) effort for progress & improvement.

The philosophy of Idealism is a good place to start I think. One form of Idealism states that our reality is fundamentally a mental interpretation/projection. Which of course is backed up by the current neurological models of how experience happens.

If we take a pill to improve the brain - this would be improving the known (ie. rockets, bombs, airconditioning) not freedom from the known.
One could argue (from non-dualism, or emptiness - or even pure materialism) that we might end up in the same place - but that would be a really tricky/confusing conversation. (as if it wasn’t already)

I suppose I’m saying that our job is not to try and change the brain, or wait for the magic pill; it is to free the brain from fear (the knower), to allow the brain to fundamentally change its function.

1 Like

If the brain’s job is to end the tyranny of fear, it must understand why it can’t bring an end to what it doesn’t understand. Why doesn’t the brain understand why fear has it in its grip? Is the brain afraid to find out?

I am reminded of the robot whose brain blows up because it has to do something it is not allowed to do.

In order to follow in the footsteps of that brave little robot, 2 conditions are necessary :

  1. It must be clearly seen that this unsatisfactory state of affairs that I am experiencing is a projection with one main purpose : to provoke an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

  2. Step 2 can happen - whatever that is (fearless awareness?) - which doesn’t always manifest as something spectacular methinks

Whether “extraordinary energy” - which I think comes from context and conditions - is necessary for step 1, step 2 or both, I don’t know.

PS. and once we are free of the known, awareness may arise more freely and easily (no need for extraordinary energy to explode the brain each time)

1 Like

I’m not so sure of that. I see it as another example of what happens when, having more confidence than anyone needs, I fail to find out that the best way to be miserable and angry is to blame something, and thereby perpetuate the cursed blame-game.

Your theory points to a culprit. My theory points to desire. We will always argue about who/what the cause is, but once desire is understood, fear is understood, and there’s no argument.

Sorry, I don’t get it - so when you speak of blame, are you describing what you think my theory is?

But yes, in actual fact I am also trying to describe the process of experience as a motor for progress via fear/desire.

Yes. You’re implying intention. Who/what wants to “provoke an unsatisfactory state of affairs”… and why?!

is thought miserable because it’s been behaving so badly? Does it hope to end its misery by behaving kindly and generously? Why can’t thought drop the burden that defines humanity? Why can’t humanity awaken from the sleep of …zzzzzzzzzzzz

Ah Okay!

Experience is a projection of the brain whose purpose is to keep the body safe - it does this by revealing all the unobtained good stuff, and all the bad stuff heading dangerously its way. That’s what the experience of being a central me is for.

An oversimplification. Do you really believe what you’ve written here? It sounds tongue-in-cheek to me.

Simplification is often helpful I find - but if anything important has been left out, it should be noted and signalled.

And yes, I am trying my best to be as accurate as I can.

Yes, you really believe what you’ve described is true, or yes you stand by your theory, speculation, supposition?

If I know something, I can prove it at any time, and it isn’t mere knowledge, more clutter. I don’t have to remember what I know because I’m living it. But alongside this visceral knowledge and muscle memory are all that I think I know, despite my inability to prove any of it.

When my conviction is all I have, I am my own prisoner in my own jail.

A couple of thoughts came up, regarding models and explanations :

Simplicity is usually a mark of clarity and efficient design.
E=MC2 is a simple model. Unfortunately, despite its simplicity, I don’t understand it well enough for it to be of any use.

Even if I have a simple model, which can be used to make accurate predictions, and/or is backed up by current consensus in science (evolutionary psychology and neurology for example, in the case of “the self experience as a projection”), and backed up by logical philosophical arguments (Idealism, K’s teachings) and personal observation (meditation, psychotropic drugs) - the fact is that it is never the description alone that will set us free.

Even the words of the Buddha or Krishnamurti (ie. “enlightened beings”) have no obvious intrinsic magical powers.

Everyone advocates freedom, but unless one is absolutely, unconditionally free, one can only know freedom from this or that. The freedom that K and others talked about is emptiness, not knowing, no self, nothing to speak of or identify with since there is no division, no separation, no this or that to be free of.

Is this something I can want and pursue, or is it what happens when I see wanting for what it is, and it is obvious that the pursuit of happiness is the happiness of pursuit?

1 Like

There is obviously no word that can describe ‘what is ‘ but ‘complete’ was the word that arose for me …that each moment under me, above me, around me was ‘complete’. It was only the movement of thought that wanted something different. The senses were partaking, but thought could never…