Where Are We?

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 what’s happening.

But it isn’t enough to acknowledge what we’re doing, and that if we don’t quit what we’re 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 don’t 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 ‘perfect’ this. There’s no big surprise about why we don’t 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, it’s 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?

If so what is lacking?

How would I know if someone is living “mostly self-lessly”? Why would I trust my judgement if I’m stupefied enough to depend more on my content than choiceless awareness?

It may very well be, as K put it, the lack of the “perception that freedom is essential”. Dimly seen perhaps at times but not as ‘essential’ , 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 ‘perception’ 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 “incoherent “ as Bohm called them and with that seeing, they might give way.

It’s been an ongoing fact for so long that anyone who must be “convinced
of the implicit harm of self centeredness” hasn’t been paying attention.

Is awareness of the movement of self possible? Does it occur?

If it isn’t possible, how would I know? All I can honestly say is that I’ve 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. I’ve 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?

So it would seem…

I would trust my judgement because that’s what ‘I’ does: trust that it gets things right. The I is a prime example of the Dunning Kruger Effect in action. I thinks it’s able to know what dwells in the heart of another person, but it may be utterly wrong!

1 Like

It also knows that it gets things wrong…unless it’s too deep in denial to admit it.

The only thing I know for sure is that I can be mistaken.

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 don’t 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 doesn’t have value, we won’t 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 won’t invest energy into it. So you will drop Netflix and instead go for a walk for example or exercise if your body is insensitive

Are you implying that for you, thought is not a constant stream of consciousness?

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 : “Ha ha! that just means you’re an introvert - nah nah nanah nah!”

Agreed - this seems to be the case.

If we value the self and the known over all else, then either we haven’t really seen its downside? Or we don’t 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 don’t 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, don’t want that) - we haven’t got it (in our bones) thats why we don’t 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 it’s 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?

1 Like

A while ago I used the word ‘identification’ in the same way you are using ‘absorption’. ‘Freedom’ to me implies a state of not being absorbed, not being identified…

I think K and others are saying that the human brain has this possibility to be ‘free’ (of an illusory ‘center?) and in K’s words, can then “participate in the immensity “.

Nothing has ‘value’ then but freedom.

1 Like

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.

You see the train running by, but you don’t get on?


1 Like

Going further, can we say that the reaction in my mind occurs only as reaction to the opinions of others. If I don’t give much importance to opinions of others like some ideology, religious idea, gossip, media, political propaganda, if I don’t 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? Doesn’t the desire for non- absorption, non-identification, freedom bring in the problem of time. K has said they are at the “beginning not the end”. You may not give importance to that but you also can’t give importance to the idea of ‘stepping out of the stream of consciousness’.

The radical idea of ‘change’ is the “denial of change”.

Or as he wrote it: “Change is the denial of change”.
The Urgency of Change