Very loosely.
How is it a leap to acknowledge that there may be nothing one can do to awaken?
I think this is a huge leap! Itās like seeing-realizing the snake is a rope. A profound dis-illusioning. Knowing with the certainty of realization that there is nothing we can do to awaken seems life-altering, especially for those of us āin the awakening game.ā
Maybe knowing would be ālife-alteringā, but Iām just saying that if I is the problem, I canāt be the solution.
1 Like
Why donāt you forget the verb (to get) and just say āI am strongly driven to(wards) ITā so that the words that follow in your sentence make more sense? Just asking.
Being strongly driven to get IT is how it feels. Being driven towards IT, less.
Speaking of āITā, this was my attempt a while back to state simply with words what my amazing ābrushā with āITā revealed:
Freedom from the known is not the result of examinations. etc. It has nothing to do with any of that. They are all part of the āsmogā in the brain.
That is the conditioned idea; that freedom is anywhere else but Now. The ātheories and conclusionsā are just more of the same āstreamā that one has been in all oneās life.**
Buddhism has the term prapanca, Sanskrit for āmental proliferation.ā
Thanks for sharing your insight!
This assumes the I cannot evolve towards deeper understanding of reality and how it fits within the grand system of existence. Iām inclined to think it can. But I donāt know. You ask well then Rick why are you here, since Krishnamurti believed passionately the I is the enemy, the fundamental cause of suffering and cruelty. Iām here because I like exposing myself to different worldviews, fathoming their essence, learning from them. And, like I said earlier, Krishnamurti and I have history, he matters to me.
Then perhaps you should admit that the words following that sentence, i.e., ādonāt know what IT is,ā are not exactly true, for either the self has an image of what IT is, or there has been an insight of what IT is. Either way, there is a āknowledgeā of what IT is.
I have the vague image of what IT is, the ultimate Truth of things, but donāt know if my image is image-ining the real or the unreal. There may be no ultimate Truth of things.
The I is constantly undergoing modification, and in that sense, evolving. But if I, the self center of the brain that identifies with its contents, is an illusion, the brain is in conflict with awareness/actuality.
So what happens when the brain seriously considers the possibility it is denying the whole truth by identifying with the partial truth of its curated content, its imagined self?
Do I want to āgetā IT because I know what IT is, or do I just think I know what IT is? Can I know what IT is if I havenāt got it? Is it enough to āgetā the concept of IT, or must one be IT to know what IT is/is not?
Yes, it goes without saying because if we didnāt have partial insights, glimpses of our condition, we would never suspect we are as enclosed and confined as we are.
Well expressed, good question.
Another good question, s/heās on a roll! I suspect you need to know you are IT.
I may be able to say in so many words and images what IT is, but until/unless I am IT, I am only words and images.
I believe we all are IT, 24/7, beginninglessly and endlessly. We canāt not be IT. But we rarely know this, and the knowing makes all the difference (awakening-wise). As always, I may be utterly heinously egregiously wrong, hence: I believe.
Yes, I agree. Thereās nothing to āgetā if we are already IT, but so confused and conflicted by what weāre holding onto and identified with that weāre not aware of what we fundamentally are.
The conditioned brain is acquisitive. All it knows is getting, acquiring, keeping, holding, etc., and it hopes by acquiring the right things and discarding the wrong things it can awaken.
But it never really gets anything or discards anything. It just accumulates and reevaluates contents to conform to its current beliefs about what should be.
I value the human brain-mind, hold it in higher esteem than you seem to. I donāt disagree with your observations about the brain, I just see them as half the story. There are for me hugely, even miraculously positive things about the brain, and not just in the realm of practical knowledge, navigating the world, building houses.
Again, what I mean by getting IT is grokking IT as when you say: Ahhhhhh, I get it!
Right, the awakening comes from outside. We can call it awareness or intelligence. Itās why I think Bohm brought up āproprioception of thoughtā. In its present state, without that, thought rules. Its unseen movement is the movement of āmeā- it is āmeā! Itās not perceived as a ātool for survivalā. Only intelligence can see what has happened. And be aware as it moves. With proprioception of its movement, that role as āmeā can be seen for what it is : false.