I can’t speak for Inquiry, but all I understood him to be saying was that if we genuinely have had the kind of insight that K was talking about, then we probably no longer have much to learn from K’s words. I recall K himself saying that when one has finished using the mirror of his teachings, one can break the mirror. But this is clearly a hypothetical situation for us, as no-one on this thread (so far!) has yet claimed to have had total insight. So K’s pointers (his teachings) are still a mirror that we can use to see ourselves as we actually are. - To break the mirror, we must first become a mirror ourselves.
3 Likes
See, you are using what K said as a blue print. Why break the mirror, why not use it instead? Plus one always needs a mirror to see one’s eyes.
In conclusion if someone doesn’t want to read K just don’t read him. It is not like we are in K’s college and need to graduate sooner. Do what you like…
If I understand this correctly, you are assuming that “I am the world” is a fact. (When I brought it up earlier I questioned whether it was a fact or not.) Why make that assumption? Let’s say you became utterly certainty that “I am the world.” Why assume you and Krishnamurti were seeing a fact, rather than seeing something that felt like a fact but was actually not factual? A spiritual rainbow, kinda sorta.
Are we talking about ‘subjective facts?’ Things one becomes convinced of? With a strong enough belief in the truth of the thing and with some people to say they have seen the same thing, a ‘fact’ is born? Sorry to be a bit cynical, but the notion of facts continues to be a trigger for me!
1 Like
“We”?
What are you playing at?
No, of course not. Conviction is just stubborn belief.
Total insight effects a radical change in the way the brain operates; a change the brain in its current condition cannot imagine or project. Is this possibility too far-fetched for you?
The possibility remains speculative. I entertain no assumption that “total insight” or “the brain radically changing” is real or unreal. I might lean towards one side or the other, but I’m usually savvy enough to realize this is personal bias. (Not always, sometimes I get carried away.) Krishnamurti or Buddha or Whitehead or Shankara saying “This is how things really are” doesn’t mean fact for me, rather view.
I thought you were similarly pan-skeptical, that you strove to remain assumption free across the board. But maybe I got that wrong about you? No judgement on my part, just the desire to catch a glimpse of what is going on inside the Inquiry noggin. 
That’s not what I said. You seem to be trying to read between the lines, to assess what motivated me to say what I said in my previous message, and your conclusion is that the notion of … is too far-fetched for me. You might have genuine insight into what makes me tick with respect to this issue. But you might be utterly wrong. Again, it’s basically an act of speculation, and as fun as it is to speculate, it has little to do with facts.
Would you feel comfortable answering my question about the scope of your assumption freeness?
It is self-evident that egocentricity is responsible for the harm, the damage, the suffering our antibiotic species inflicts upon every living thing, but acknowledging this doesn’t change anything. So, if the horror of humanity is to end, the human brain must change from its self-centered operation to operating without a center. What will bring about this change?
Krishnamurti spoke of the “awakening of intelligence”. Is that what’s needed, or do we think we’re intelligent enough to bring about the change? What happens when the brain realizes it is operating without intelligence?
2 Likes
What is motive behind Knowing and talking about fact?
2 Likes
Not at all. That is why I drew your attention to the analogy of the person who has been into space and seen with their own eyes that the earth is a sphere. For that person - not for the person who is earth bound - it is an incontrovertible fact that the earth is a sphere. Do you see the difference? For the person who is earth-bound (who has not been into space, and is - for the purposes of the analogy - unaware, whether through photographs or moving images, what the earth looks like from space) it is not a fact that the earth is a sphere.
The next step in this analogy is that the person who has seen the truth (if it is a truth) with their own eyes (that the earth is a sphere) comes down to earth and communicates what they have seen to other people on earth.
It is then up to me what I do with that communication, how I listen to what has been said.
Similarly, with the statement You are (or - I am -) the world. What matters is how I receive the statement, whether my previous ideas and beliefs interpose themselves between myself and the statement, whether I am able to hear it freshly for the first time, whether I am distracted by the tone of voice, the accent, the facial expression of the person making the statement, etc. All these considerations make a difference as to how far the statement will penetrate my mind, how deeply whatever truth (or fact) there is in the statement can dissolve my conditioning.
And only then, when - as I said previously - my mind has been transformed by
only then
So it is not a matter of assuming anything, or of prematurely arriving at certainties that feel like facts but aren’t facts. It is matter of listening and enquiring - without prejudice - into what has been communicated; and to test out for oneself whether it is a fact, a truth (that we are the world), or not.
Ok. Let’s take one of Krishnamurti’s statements - ‘You are the world’ - and read it as it is communicated in the context of one of his talks:
[W]e are the world, the world is you and me, the world is not separate from you and me. We have created this world, the world of violence, the world of wars, the world of religious divisions, sex, anxieties, the utter lack of communication with each other, without any sense of compassion, consideration for another. So wherever one goes, whether in India, the Middle East, or come to this country, in essence right through the world human beings, that is you and another living in India, in America, in Europe or in the extreme Orient, we suffer, we are anxious, we are uncertain, we don’t know what is going to happen. Everything has become uncertain. So there is a common relationship between us all, whether we live in a cold climate, or hot climate, or very far away or very near, it is our human problem, therefore we are the world essentially, basically, fundamentally, and the world is you, and you are the world. I do not know if one really realizes that, not intellectually but deeply, basically, that right through the world as human beings we are in sorrow, fear, anxiety, violence, uncertain of everything, insecure. So unless one realizes that the world is you, and you are the world, fundamentally, deeply, not romantically, not intellectually but actually, because then our problem is the global problem, not my problem or your particular problem, it is a human problem. (Ojai, Talk 1, 1976)
If one reads (or listens) to this, what is so very “subjective” about its contents? What parts of the statement/communication require a “strong belief in the truth of the thing” as you put it?
We have created the world of society, no? The world of wars, religious divisions, ideological divisions, etc, has been created by human beings like us, by our ancestors, by our parents and their parents - and by ourselves. Correct? Society hasn’t been created by some alien being, or by a committee of angels. It is the creation of human beings - and we are human beings.
And right throughout the world human beings - like ourselves - suffer, are anxious, uncertain, lost, etc. No?
These are (at least for any reasonable person) obvious facts.
The part (i.e. the ‘fact’) that we don’t properly see, or properly feel, is the depth of this relationship. - That is, the ‘fact’ (proposed by Krishnamurti) that we do not merely share these qualities (of suffering, insecurity, fear, etc), we do not merely partake in the creation of society - which is a more superficial relationship to each other - but that we actually are, deeply, non-different to these human qualities (of suffering, insecurity, fear, etc); we are responsible for society because we are society.
This is a deeper level of ‘fact’ than we are used to seeing, meaning that it is not a fact for us - because it depends upon an actual insight to become fully apparent.
But the rest of Krishnamurti’s statement is entirely factual and objective. - Do you reject this?
Now I see two assumed facts, they’re multiplying!
Assumed fact 1: There is such a thing as ‘total insight.’
Assumed fact 2: With this ‘total insight’ thing I am truthfully able to say 'I am the world."
I don’t see any questioning of these facts, any holding them in abeyance until proven true or false, no:
And only then, when my mind has been transformed by total insight (should such a thing exist),
only then am I truthfully able to say with full confidence that I am or am not the world.
I await your explanation of what I am getting wrong. 
This passage is eminently sane, and in this context, limited to this scope of meaning, its truth seems obvious. I and the world co-create each other. It passes muster as a fact, using the definition we came up with earlier.
I guess it’s a matter of context and proper understanding. The phrase itself, I am the world, is apparently paradoxical: It seems to be saying that the part (I) is the whole (world). Not the part is part of the whole, but somehow is the whole. And that suggests something mystical is at hand. Which I suspect was intentional on the part of Krishnamurti. All his mahavakyas have that quality. Same goes for the actual mahavakyas from the Upanishads, but mysticism is to be expected in that context. I wonder if Krishnamurti was trying to imitate (perhaps unconsciously) the vibe of the mahavakyas?
What is the difference between 2 human consciousnesses? mainly identification with the contents (my ideas, my experience, my memories) and the quality of the perception (synesthesia, deafness, culturallly defined world views etc) - this special expression of consciousness (me) ends at death, but a whole load of other subjective centers (me’s) still exist. Are these 2 consciousnesses actually the same, seeing as my special expression of consciousness seems so much more special than yours?
As I said earlier : if you trust me, and I describe my “enlightment experience” to you, is it reasonable for you to accept that what I think happened, actually happened? If not, I don’t see how its reasonable for me to determine what actually happened either - even though it happened to me.
There is also the issue of our need to know/categorise.
1 Like
No, rickScott - there are no two assumed facts! - not even one! 
There is - if it can be expressed like this - an openness to the possibility of X
(where X = total insight, or just insight, as Krishnamurti describes insight).
When or if there is insight, there is insight - and one can speak directly from that insight (this is a tautology). If this insight is that I am the world, that is then the content of the insight. That’s all.
But I don’t assume that insight before hand - I am merely open to the possibility that this apparent insight (that Krishnamurti has communicated) is within the borders of what is possible for ‘my’ brain/mind.
Maybe. It is difficult for me to judge without having actually had an insight into it! The non-difference of oneself and the world mirrors the non-difference of the observer and the observed in Krishnamurti’s teachings. There is no intrinsic reason why this insight (if it is true) might not penetrate all the way to the ground of being. As Krishnamurti told Bohm during the first of their Ending of Time discussions (in 1981):
One night at Rishi Valley in India I woke up. A series of incidents had taken place; there had been meditation for some days. It was a quarter past twelve; I looked at the watch [laughs]. And—I hesitate to say this, because it sounds extravagant and rather childish—the source of all energy had been reached. And that had an extraordinary effect on the brain, and also physically. Sorry to talk about myself, but you understand, literally any sense of . . . I don’t know how to put it . . . any sense of the world and me, and that—you follow?—there was no division at all. Only this sense of tremendous source of energy.
Implying that in the depths of insight (if it is possible) there is fundamentally only the whole, and nothing but the whole.
1 Like
You’re a smart and honorable guy. (Or seem to be, what do I know?! ) If you look deep within and report back you are open to the possibilities of the things we’ve been discussing rather than assuming that they are either right or likely to be right because of what some guy said 50 years ago … I’ll believe you.
1 Like
Physics theory has it that all material entities arise from the same all-encompassing quantum field. Does that make each entity the same?
Nondual theory has it everything arises from/within the same all-encompassing consciousness field. Does that make each ‘individual’ consciousness the same?
If you were to describe your kensho experience in terms of the experience itself, what it felt like subjectively, and assuming I trusted you, I would believe you. But even if I trusted you unconditionally, if you were to interpret your kensho experience, what it meant metaphysically, I would take what you said as your story, i.e. as fiction possibly based on truth.
2 Likes
Of course, my openness to the possibility of what we’ve been talking about takes place within the context of the life I have had. I cannot speak for another. So this includes moments - in ‘my’ own life - where the sense of being separate (from the world) has receded temporarily into the background, and there was only the world (as it were).
This doesn’t make me in any way special, as I think these ‘moments’ are shared by most people who are serious about these matters - as well as by poets, artists, musicians, athletes, etc. But it does of course contribute to whether one is open to the possibility of truth (i.e. total insight) or not, which is why I mention it.
1 Like
Thanks for looking and sharing your findings.
(One last thing…) This brings up our relationship with nature.
We have talked about facts, we have talked a little bit (or at least I have - you have not committed yourself!) about being open to the possibility of truth, but what is our relationship with nature? Do you feel this is an important question?
Our relationship to physical theory (such as quantum physics and its postulated quantum vacuum/quantum plenum/foam, etc) is of necessity a largely theoretical one. Our only genuinely direct relationship with nature is through our sense-perceptions, our immediate awareness - of trees, of grass, of insects, of birds, of animals, of fields and hills and clouds and skies, of rivers and lakes or ponds. Do you not feel that part of the question of what is actual, what is true, involves a relationship with all this?
And so the question arises: do we feel a part of this natural world? Do we feel some sense of implicit kinship with living things, with animals and plants? - or are we just brains in a vat, completely separate from the world of animals and plants?!!
And if we do feel a kinship, doesn’t this have a bearing on what we consider to be the limits of our world? For then our world doesn’t just stop at the edges of our human-made reality, but extends to the wider universe of the myriad living things with which we share the earth. Don’t you think?