Words pointing towards this: dharmakaya, brahman, Tao, truth.
IT is, according to Krishnamurti, when the brain is silent and empty (no stream of consciousness) and there is only awareness and direct perception.
The conditioned brain that is never without its stream of consciousness and its reactions to awareness desires IT because it imagines itself better off without its conditioning.
Which emptiness and silence is impossible with the occupying image of oneself as an individual psychologically separate from the rest. The image wants to âbecomeâ this or that , rich, famous, enlightened, etcâŠalways in the imagined âfutureâ of the psyche. Because the self is a construction of thought which is always a response of the âpastâ, it stays caught in the stream dreaming of a different existence.
When we chase after the images of desire projected by the conditioned mind, what are we really chasing?
Doesnât it depend on the image. Is it divisive? Does it create harm, pollution, jealousy, anger?
Divisive images encourage division.
When we chase the images of desire, we are simply chasing the images of desire.
The images of desire necessarily involve division, between the desired and the non-desired I have cut the world in 2.
Also when I create an image and pursue it, I am pursuing my own projections - its a kind of dream based on my anxieties. Some dreams are pleasant because I resolve my fear, others are uncomfortable.
Also when I have an image that I take to be real - this belief is a wall between me and what actually is - eg. If I try to find Yahweh, what I see tends to indicate Yahweh, rather than anything else (its bad science - does not lead to truth, but rather leads to what the brain is predicting. Good science starts with âI donât know what is thereâ which leaves more possibilities open)
I am driven strongly to get IT, but do not know what IT is, how to get IT, or whether IT even exists outside my imagination. Thus do I fumble on, going by feel, looking.
We are chasing our tale of what should be by comparing what we think is with what we think should be. All the conditioned brain can understand is progress, improvement, modification, from this to that.
I is a closed system (with occasional glimpses of whatâs beyond). I is all about time, from here to there. This closed system cannot âgetâ IT because IT is beyond the system.
The system is closed but not sealed. Insight is possible.
Can you just stay with this feeling without thinking about it? If what youâre feeling is dissatisfaction with your conditioning, wouldnât it make more sense to explore the feeling and perhaps fathom it than to think or talk about it?
Yes, it is important: arenât we talking about what you call âpathological stuffâ as a whole, and not just about âthe most obviousâ, which is the usual division that the self uses to construct its confused reality and perpetuate it over time?
Neither one nor the other, Mac. To me, the ones I mentioned and the ones you mentioned are equally permeated by the same âpathological stuffâ.
So why look at âCanât think of anything horrible going on right now that isnât due to this âpathological stuffââ in a fragmentary way instead of looking at it as a whole, including all brains without distinction, as we tend to do here in our discussions of the chaos and confusion generated by that brain and its slave (or vice versa â including our particular brain and slave)?
Do you have any doubts about my honest curiosity?
Why not start an enquiry from there then, instead of asking someone who is in fact saying the same thing: âAre you a fan of the people I mentioned or do you really think we should discuss policies or name all politicians?â? Does the question you asked have anything to do with listening/looking carefully at what the other is saying/asking?
The feeling and thinking are intertwined. Feeling-thinking. Flinking.
Oh, thank you so much for your approval, Rick!
Now I can go to sleep peacefully knowing that Iâm on the right track!
This sounds right in terms of analytical logic, but logic only goes so far for me, it can help usher you to the edge of the cliff, but canât help you take the leap.
It canât be helped. If the contents of consciousness were not flowing constantly, the clarity would reveal the world of I, me, mine as the delusion it was.
Not to mention the dramatic idea that there is a âleapâ to be takenâŠthe âdarknessâ that we live is strengthened by the notion that we live in darkness⊠and must leap into the âlightâ.
ââ©â(âŁ_âą)ââ©â I am here to serve. ââ©â(âŁ_âą)ââ©â
I am using terms like âgetting ITâ and âtaking the leapâ loosely, as pointers to understanding, insight, realization. Getting it may mean: There is nothing to get. Taking the leap may mean: Understanding that there is no leap to take.
Well, thatâs my conscious intention, unconsciously I may be holding onto the wishful beliefs that IT can be gotten, and The Leap may be taken. How would I know?
As has been pointed out, there may be no leap to take because there is no would-be leaper to take it. More likely, there may be nothing you or I can do to awaken but find out what there is to awaken from.
And thereâs the leap! Again, Iâm using âleapâ loosely, perhaps close to Krishnamurtiâs âinsight.â And again I may be fooling myself and using leap as a limiting belief. Glad you point this out, itâs always good (uncomfortable) to be reminded of our beliefs.