Yes, these are the kinds of questions I’m asking, wondering about: Does Truth matter to Truth? Does our seeing/knowing Truth (awakening) matter to Truth? Does the Universe care about its inhabitants? Do the ‘answers’ to these questions matter? Does anything ultimately matter?
Truth is complete, full, like the flower, which breathes in its own perfume. In the flower (truth) there is no need to confirm the value of the perfume. The pathless land is the eternal, the same, unchangeable fullness. It emanates parfume (fullness) while it remains full (or empty of anything else).
This is an easy one. Of course the Universe cares about its inhabitants…except for one. That one would be , Bernie Silverman. I don’t know what he did but the Universe said “ I don’t care if that guy is awakened or whatever, I don’t want anything to do with him!”…Cold.
This is a little more complex but yes, Truth matters to Truth in exactly the same way as matter matters to matter.
1 Like
Are you sharing this as a fact, your view, or Krishnamurti’s view? Does it matter?
(Right after I posted this I saw simple’s question, which links to my ‘Does it matter?’ : “Whether she does or doesn’t fully understand … is irrelevant.”)
Why pose grand questions like these when we’re stumped by a simple question like, Why am I not choicelessly aware?
1 Like
For better and for worse 'tis the grand questions that really matter to me. Relative truth often leaves me underwhelmed and hungry for inherent Truth.
After we get through those “relative” non-grand ones let’s tackle one of the really age -old goodies: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Anyone?
And when we’ve settled that:
Do we have a ‘soul’?
(Except for Bernie of course.)
1 Like
Only One angel at a time can dance on the head of the pin, but since time travels into the infinite, infinite # of angels will dance on the pin.
I admit I searched up the expression, I never heard it, so my answer is totally random.
Since the beginning of your question, has any of the words/responses posted here by me/us, reveal anything to you ? Or deepen your question ?
Now, to respond to your question: what I shared is a view I have about truth based on readings, reflections and some direct raw experiences I have/had. I used K’s words (the flower and it’s parfume) to ”talk about truth” cause it is a K platform but I could have used a different language or analogy, or even words which come from a direct experience. Yet I didn’t do it and won’t do it cause it will be rejected.
1 Like
Revealed, deepened, opened, modified. Some more than others.
I understand, you are expressing yourself in a manner you feel will be relatively well-received by the forum. Perhaps you expressed yourself earlier in a different way and gotten ‘stung?’
These types of questions are used by ego to sustain itself . One was caught in these for years and one still a prisoner even though now and then one awakens to the fact that one is still a prisoner and is stumped by it.
Why am I not chocelessly aware? Is it habbit to be remain in state of the known, security of the known but now and then take interest in K’s teachings to satisfy oneself that one is engaged in something worthwhile.
What is surprising to one is the cunnigness of the one’s ego to use K’s teachings to sustains itself.
If ego is a thought process in the brain how come it is so cunning ?
1 Like
That is I think one aspect of why the Big Questions are posed and investigated. A key aspect that wants exploring, but not the only aspect.
Maybe the ego is only able to get away with its tricks in the non-light of inattention?
The ‘I’ that is asking the question is thought posing as the I, it is thought posing as the ‘thinker’. By projecting ‘you’ as separate from its process, it performed and is performing its most ‘cunning’ trick: e.g. you believe that you exist and according to K at least, you don’t. And to look into the possibility that that is our human situation and if it is , how that possible ‘truth’ can break through thought’s illusion and be revealed…is why some of us rightly or wrongly, are here.
Thought is a mechanical process that is based on information presumed to be true, accurate, reliable, i.e., knowledge. But thought is not a lie detector so it can’t know that there is no I, no thinker, doing the thinking when everyone takes it for granted that thought is done by I, the thinker.
If there is no I, no thinker, thought cannot know because thought can only be informed by what does know whether I, the thinker, is real or imagined, and thought is not in contact with that source of information.
By projecting ‘you’ as separate from its process, it performed and is performing its most ‘cunning’ trick: e.g. you believe that you exist and according to K at least, you don’t.
Thought is not a trickster, a villain, a culprit, etc. It’s a mechanical process that can’t do what it exists to do when it is not in contact with what is true, actual. It is for lack of choiceless awareness that thought is in the dark and, under pressure from emotional desperation, presumes to know more than what little it does know.
And to look into the possibility that that is our human situation and if it is , how that possible ‘truth’ can break through thought’s illusion and be revealed…is why some of us rightly or wrongly, are here.
Truth doesn’t have to “break through” because it is all there actually is. It is the human brain that has to break free of its self-imposed limitation, isolation, separation.
If thought is just a process, how can it pose or project a seperate entity as I/me.
There seems to be something more involved in creation and sustainment of entity I /me than just a process called thought.
But it is also true as one sees it that in state of choiceless awarness , however brief it is , there is no I/me/centre but only what is.
We learn to think as children. Thought emerges from the brain, the body. But what has happened in this example when one day thought ‘decides’ that it doesn’t ‘like’ the body that it is part of and ‘wishes’ it had a different body; hasn’t it disassociated itself from the body and is acting as an independent ‘entity’?
It ‘wishes’ that things were different than what they in fact are and sets about or desires to change ‘what is’ to what it has decided, ‘should be’.
Yes. Thought is not responsible for the way it is used by the brain. The brain is subject to feelings, emotions like desire, fear, anger, sorrow, ambition, competition, greed, hatred, etc., and these powerful emotions determine how thought is utilized.
What ultimately matters? Well, if the ultimately means inherently, as in
What matters inherently?
What has inherent value?
What has value (or non-value) independent of all context?
then I’m pretty sure that the answer is:
Nothin’
Does that answer matter?
Yes!
Inherently?
No! (?)
1 Like