The brain has memory because there is factual information we need to hold onto. And the brain has discernment, the ability to distinguish factual information from fiction and fantasy. But when the brain is conditioned, persuaded, to depend more on its held information than the awareness that informs it every moment; more dependent on its content than awareness, it is caught in the cage of thought, preferring past information over present.
To step out of the cage of thought, the brain must first be aware of its predicament, and that means being aware enough to know that memory is constantly reminding and restoring by streaming. This constant stream of consciousness means the brain has gone from being choicelessly aware to choosing its content over awareness. The brain has been conditioned to react to awareness instead of being informed by it. The human being has turned its back on actuality in favor of its own ideas and beliefs about whatās happening.
But it isnāt enough to acknowledge what weāre doing, and that if we donāt quit what weāre doing, things can only get worse for every living being on Earth. The brain must quit depending on its content and depend on choiceless awareness if there is any hope for our species and all the species we endanger now.
But our problem is that we cannot do what we donāt choose to do because our species has been committed to choosing for so long, we have forgotten how to abandon our decisions, our choices; forgotten how to clear ourselves of our accumulation of what-was and what-should-be, for the sake of what actually is.
Homo sapiens evolved to value the map over the territory, the idea over the actuality, the image over the real. It took millions of years to āperfectā this. Thereās no big surprise about why we donāt live more in the now (given evolution), the surprise is there are those who manage to live mostly in the now! Same for the ego-self, itās astonishing there are those who manage to live mostly self-lessly. Living in the past, future, and identifying as a self are woven into the fabric of our being. Perhaps the ability to live in the now and identify as no-self are also built in?
If we are convinced of the dangers of being controlled by our self centered experience, and awareness of the movement and authority of the known is possible, what is lacking?
Are we convinced of the implicit harm of self centeredness?
Is awareness of the movement of self possible? Does it occur?
How would I know if someone is living āmostly self-lesslyā? Why would I trust my judgement if Iām stupefied enough to depend more on my content than choiceless awareness?
It may very well be, as K put it, the lack of the āperception that freedom is essentialā. Dimly seen perhaps at times but not as āessentialā , not with the sufficient energy to break the spell, to go beyond the neurological reflexes stored in the brain and dissolve them.
And such a āperceptionā could only come with the awareness of their presence. Many of these conditioned reflexes are necessary to go about our lives but others create conflict, confusion, psychological fear, etc. They must be seen for what they are, not confronted with force but seen clearly as āincoherent ā as Bohm called them and with that seeing, they might give way.
Itās been an ongoing fact for so long that anyone who must be āconvinced
of the implicit harm of self centerednessā hasnāt been paying attention.
Is awareness of the movement of self possible? Does it occur?
If it isnāt possible, how would I know? All I can honestly say is that Iāve given up trying to find out.
Does it occur?
Are you not increasingly aware of what you/thought is doing/has done?
If so what is lacking?
Good question. Iāve suggested that the brain may have forgotten how to refresh itself, and I can imagine other reasons, but would knowing, having the answer, make a significant difference?
I would trust my judgement because thatās what āIā does: trust that it gets things right. The I is a prime example of the Dunning Kruger Effect in action. I thinks itās able to know what dwells in the heart of another person, but it may be utterly wrong!
The self is often in denial. In a way its foundation is the denial of reality.
The self knows it gets certain things wrong, that its knowledge-understanding of the world, others, and even (possibly) itself is limited. But it may miss the subtler things, the hidden things, things that feel like its true nature (for example: I am real!).
We have given value to thought activity, so we donāt know silence. We occupy our mind with things that have no value or are very limited like politics, Netflix, entertainment and also listen to Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti points to limitedness of thought activity. Thought creating selfishness, being limited not able to meet life as whole. Thought never giving a holistic answer. It creates problems as it is divided. If we occupy ourselves with making too much money we ignore relationships. If we occupy ourselves with entertainment we neglect health.
If we see silence has value and thought mostly doesnāt have value, we wonāt occupy ourselves with thought activity.
It is not about cultivation but seeing the value or non value of something and not giving it importance. If we see thought has very little value we wonāt invest energy into it. So you will drop Netflix and instead go for a walk for example or exercise if your body is insensitive
There is no such implication in the text -
Adeen is describing what might be if we value silence over noise - the implication could be that he values silence over noise. So if you wanted to accuse him of being a sub par philosopher, you could say : āHa ha! that just means youāre an introvert - nah nah nanah nah!ā
Agreed - this seems to be the case.
If we value the self and the known over all else, then either we havenāt really seen its downside? Or we donāt care about being the cause of suffering? (just, one, more cookie)
We probably recognise the concept, understand the idea - like I can understand the idea that all humans are equally important as an idea, but I donāt really feel it truely in my bones.
Or I can be attracted to the idea of silence, and feel that I am benefitting from silence - and thus start discriminating between silence and noise, without ever seeing a complete picture of the power and implications of self-centered discrimination.
It seems obvious : we are identifying with ideas at best (thats why we have fundamentalist K defenders, violently defending their idea of the teaching) and we continue to react to the contents of the known (I want this, donāt want that) - we havenāt got it (in our bones) thats why we donāt care (its just another idea)
No, what I am saying, inner thought, my thoughts, there is no choice, thoughts come on their own.
Outer thought, there seems to be choice. Why should I occupy myself with what Marx said, Biden says, Trump says or some Guru says. There I have a choice. As that does not have value I can drop it. Why should I watch some useless TV reality show if it does not have any value. So I can drop things which have no value outside.
It would be good if we could explore absorption. Can there be thought without us being absorbed in it. This seems to be possible externally. If someone says something only if I consider it important I will react to it. If I consider an ideology to be important, I will react to opinions on it. If itās not important to me will I react to it? Why do we give so much importance to thought? If we see thought is false why would we give importance to it. I am then no longer interested in outer expressions of thought. If I am interested in thoughts I react to them. If I am not interested in thoughts, will there be a reaction to them?
A while ago I used the word āidentificationā in the same way you are using āabsorptionā. āFreedomā to me implies a state of not being absorbed, not being identifiedā¦
I think K and others are saying that the human brain has this possibility to be āfreeā (of an illusory ācenter?) and in Kās words, can then āparticipate in the immensity ā.
Right : the idea, for example, that I am a bad person, has less impact when spoken to me by some random guy on the street, than when its my own thoughts.
If some random guy on the street tells me to go shoplift, I would instantly ignore the idea. But if the idea spontaneously popped into my own head whilst I was in the shop, I might hesitate.
Going further, can we say that the reaction in my mind occurs only as reaction to the opinions of others. If I donāt give much importance to opinions of others like some ideology, religious idea, gossip, media, political propaganda, if I donāt give importance to all that, there may be no reaction in me and my mind might be automatically silent.
All that is outer common consciousness of mankind, media, politicians, religious speakers shape that and if we consider their word as truth we are caught in it. If we however see that is not truth, all those things are temporary, only nature is truth, silence of nature is truth as it is not man made, will our mind be automatically silent. We can only step out of the common stream of consciousness of man. The common stream are the opinions bombarded from outside. Can we step outside of it by not giving importance to them.
Can I become this by giving up that? Doesnāt the desire for non- absorption, non-identification, freedom bring in the problem of time. K has said they are at the ābeginning not the endā. You may not give importance to that but you also canāt give importance to the idea of āstepping out of the stream of consciousnessā.
The radical idea of āchangeā is the ādenial of changeā.
Or as he wrote it: āChange is the denial of changeā.
The Urgency of Change
