Hello, macdoudoug! Each one of us is unique, I think everybody knows that. Generally speaking, I would say that it’s this uniqueness that makes up one self. Krishnamurti speaks of ‘a bundle of memories’ but the self is a lot more, that I’m sure about. There are all sorts of explanations, more occultist or more scientific, all that matters, I think, is this responsibility that was being talked about… and ‘this light in oneself’ that Krishnamurti sometimes enigmatically referred to. Selfishness is acting for the exclusive benefit of the self, which, of course, can never result in right action because the self in itself is not static and independent from the rest of the world, as I have suggested before.It’s illusion that produces selfishness.
The stream of consciousness is a constant reminder of who I am and that nothing matters more than the continuation of I. When the brain is aware of this movement as the beating heart of its identity, it attends to it because nothing is more important than understanding why it is doing this.
The human brain has concluded that humanity exists to dominate rather than to live harmlessly. Thus, it dominates itself by imagining itself instead of being an inseparable part of everything it is aware of.
Its past my bedtime but many native English speakers are familiar with the expression “to be a light unto yourself” - its about acting from one’s own understanding, and not the second hand knowledge from some outside teaching.
Yes, macdougdoug, I know. Krishnamurti, though, sometimes speaks of the light in oneself. I don’t have the book with me just now, but ‘This light in one self’ is a Krishnamurti book. And I remember Krishnamurti telling, I think, Sunanda Patwardhan not to be shy to talk in public at some special occasion because ‘it wasn’t her’ anyway that would be talking. I always understood he meant to say it was ‘this light’.
From : This light in oneself (K, talk 4 Amsterdam, 1968)
"… it would be immensely worthwhile to see for each one of us if we could be a light to ourselves, a light that has no dependence on another and that is completely free…
We all want to accept somebody who promises something, because we have no light in ourselves, and nobody can give you that light, no one - no guru, no teacher, no saviour, no one. Because we have accepted so many authorities in the past, we have put our faith in others, either they have exploited us or they have utterly failed. So one must distrust, deny all spiritual authority. Nobody can give us this light that never dies.
So meditation is the understanding of life, which is to bring about order. Order is virtue, which is light, which is not to be lit by another, however experienced, however clever, however erudite, however spiritual. Nobody on earth or in heaven can light that, except yourself, in your own understanding and meditation. And to die to every thing within oneself, for love is innocent and fresh, young and clear.
Then, if you have established this order, this virtue, this beauty, this light in oneself, then one can go beyond. Which means then the mind, having laid order, which is not of thought, then the mind becomes utterly quiet, silent - naturally, without any force, without any discipline. And in the light of that silence all action can take place, the daily living, from that silence."
Thank you, macdougdoug. In that silence… the light is. Enigmatic and beautiful.
Krishnamurti provided us with the map of the territory of pathlessness to show there is no way to get from here to there because here is now and there is nowhere.
If I’m not disagree or agree - is this important? One can try to see for himself, try to discover. What is robot? Seems that robot is a program. Is a programme conditioned? Is it conditioned “highly”, or partially? Ask these same questions about a bat. And about a man.
As for “voluntary” - it was so said. Not by me. So I think: if smth is voluntary, there must be the will of some actor - the one who acts, no? Conscious or unconscious, no? Just as the act may be conscious or unconscious.
Yes, you’re right, the word responsibility can be used “in a moral sense, as a kind of duty or social idea”. And I wonder, what is " responsibility for the world"? It might be an idea as well… And maybe not… maybe it could be something real and living…
Of course, “whatever our beliefs about the brain and attention are based on - they seem to be besides the point”. Beliefs are beliefs, and attention is attention. And awareness is awareness, etc. I wonder if anybody here deals with reality which has to do with the actual state of one’s consciousness
What does it mean to “deal with reality”?
If it is clear to us that our reality is a projection based in sorrow - or survival - has reality been dealt with sufficiently?
It seems to imply that attention may be… different. Attention may be something of the me, of the centre, so, it has a motive behind itself. And there’s one more thing alike: when one is so called watchful, to everything one does in any moment of time.
On the other hand, there’s so called “passive awareness”. It was mentioned above, that mind is not able to maintain constant active attention, so, attention can “wander”, or kind of “slip away”. And: maybe this slipping itself can be watched, noticed. Without a watcher.
Do you want my answer? If i give an answer - what would it change? Reality can be only your own, of your own consciousness. Your perception, if you like.
EDIT: I just got home and reread your post, and I think I misunderstood your question, that you were actually asking who would want to aspire to “no continuity, no perspective”. So I have deleted my previous answer (if I’m still wrong, let me know).
Well, if so, the one who thinks he-is, and through intellectual understanding of the words of another, now thinks that in fact he-is-not, and therefore has to do something to go from ‘I am’ to 'I am not’ (which means that in trying not-to-be, he still is).
On the other hand, what exactly do you mean by “no continuity”, “no perspective”?
Yes. “Not realizing that I am causing harm” is my inattention to the other, and that does not exempt me from responsibility. Otherwise I would not feel responsible when I finally realize that I have caused harm in the other.
It could be, but not necessarily. It all depends on what that behavior brings to you. We all know that when we have done harm and we realize it, the thought can say, “I know I hurt him/her, but she/he deserved it!”
And then, after such temporary insight, thought sets in motion all its machinery to achieve that “essential” freedom, right?
Guilt (i.e., responsibility for any action of the robot) is when the so-called “robot” goes beyond its initial program (either consciously or unconsciously).
The ‘perception’ is the freedom, they are not separate. Freedom is only in the moment, thought is a response of the past, it could never be free. Thought is a ‘tool’…the brain employed it for a sense of psychological security which was a mistake. Because of thought’s limitations it could never supply that total security the brain needs. The brain needs to understand that total security lies in its being nothing, no one, silent…not in a constant stream of thought.
Without the perception that freedom is essential, it will stay ‘trapped’ in its conditioned state.
OK. Now, after having talked about fantasies, can we now talk about actuality?
[quote=“danmcderm, post:97, topic:3181”]
Without the perception that freedom is essential, ithe brain will stay ‘trapped’ in its conditioned state.
The point here is that there is no “perception of freedom”. If there were, it would be nothing more than a projection of thought taking over what insight has seen, labeling it as “essential”, which then leads thought (not insight) to pursue that freedom with the only tools at its disposal, that is: fantasy.