Your consciousness is not "yours."

[Peter]

That is not an understanding. It is a cleverness.

[Inquiry]

It isn’t even clever. It’s just self-deception.

[Peter]

The cleverness is for the deceived to think it is something called self-deception.

[sree]

@Inquiry

My identity and environment is more a matter of conclusion and expectation than attention to the actual unfolding of events. The mind is less open to what-is, more attached to what-should-be.

This is insanity because it is willful disregard of what is actual in favor of what is imagined; deliberate denial of actuality for the sake of one’s own narrative. I feel compelled to be the author of my story because merely noting what happens does nothing for “me”, my fictitious identity.

How do you tell what is actuality and what is imagined? You view insanity as an attachment to delusion. Your default position is that we are deluded and we have the burden of proof. Where is the trust? This is worse than skepticism. There is no room for doubt let alone reasonable doubt. You are dead certain that we are all selfish and only interested in helping ourselves.

Be that as it may, let’s accept your argument that there is no redemption for humanity. What about our respective personal lives? Is there any value in right living at the practical level? Krishnamurti said that to go far we must begin very near. Dan says he smokes cigarettes. This is insane because it is harmful to the body and he must stop doing that. Am I deluded?

[Howard]

@DanMcD

A “better “ way to live is to understand that this reality based on the past is a false reality, an illusory reality.

**Dan - It’s a joy to observe your clear descriptions of the human condition. Those who ‘claim’ to somehow “know” this is “cleverness” or “self-deception” might consider looking at these conditioned-thought reactions and ask, “Is this thought/belief something one actually has a direct insight into?” To actually be serious about observing the conditioning requires being honest about what one actually knows and what one doesn’t know. If not, that’s when the actual self-deception occurs.

K: Can we be honest if we have illusions and romantic and speculative ideals and strong beliefs? We may be honest to a belief but that does not imply integrity. - Questions and Answers

[Inquiry]

@sree

You are dead certain that we are all selfish and only interested in helping ourselves.

I haven’t said or implied that there is “no redemption for humanity”. There may be some of us who are not self-centered, so my view isn’t the all-or-nothing, dead certain conviction you accuse me of. I’ve met people whose self-centeredness - if it existed - was not apparent.

“Am I deluded?”, you ask. I would say that most of us are deluded because we don’t realize that being self-centered is not the best way to go about being human. In fact, it’s the worst way. So if “we must begin very near”, we can watch our every move, every thought, every decision, every impulse and reaction, and realize what we’re doing and why. Or we can continue assuming more than we can ascertain, and reacting more than responding.

[Inquiry]

@Peter

The cleverness is for the deceived to think it is something called self-deception.

Or for the deceiver to call it “cleverness”.

[sree]

@Inquiry

I haven’t said or implied that there is “no redemption for humanity”. There may be some of us who are not self-centered, so my view isn’t the all-or-nothing, dead certain conviction you accuse me of.

What do you mean by “self-centered”? To Dan, it is the psychological self-image. To me, it is the physical form. Both conditions of self-centeredness drive human actions. What is your take on this?

@Inquiry

I’ve met people whose self-centeredness - if it existed - was not apparent.

If it is not apparent, and you see no evidence of this condition of self-centeredness, which you and Dan view as a disorder, why won’t you give those people a clean bill of health and accept them as free of disorder? Was Krishnamurti unconditionally free of self-centeredness according to your definition?

@Inquiry

“Am I deluded?”, you ask. I would say that most of us are deluded because we don’t realize that being self-centered is not the best way to go about being human. In fact, it’s the worst way, and I’m no better than anyone else who is self-centered. So if “we must begin very near”, we must watch our every thought, every decision, every impulse and reaction, or we’re assuming that we are not the problem.

This is exactly what I asked you help me out with: tell me if my approach in self-monitoring has merit. I have renounced every pursuit other than taking care of the needs of the body. Am I in a state of bliss doing this? My answer is no. I wish for a better fate than just being the caretaker of the body. Krishnamurti said to watch my desire to change my fate, don’t yield to the temptation, and let it flower and die. I have been doing this for ten years now and it hasn’t died. And my consciousness is still mine.

[DanMcD]

@sree

Dan says he smokes cigarettes. This is insane because it is harmful to the body and he must stop doing that. Am I deluded?

No of course not…but Dan doesn’t smoke cigarettes because they are bad for the body.

[Inquiry]

Maybe you should take a vacation from your quest. It sounds like the teaching is a millstone around your neck.

[Peter]

Look Sir, it is obvious the use of words can be self centered or not. Can’t you just get that point and not keep riding it? It really is regressive.

[sree]

@Inquiry

Maybe you should take a vacation from your quest. It sounds like the teaching is a millstone around your neck.

It’s no longer a millstone now that I have gotten used to it. I still feel like a donkey though. Taking care of a human body is not my idea of a wonderful destiny. Before reading Krishnamurti, everything was great. But I had to find out what “negation” was. Curiosity killed the cat.

If I didn’t renounce as Siddharta did, I wouldn’t have found out the truth about my situation as a human being. I thought I was hot stuff. I was smart and successful and could be anything I wanted to be in life. Look at Elon Musk. He is going to Mars. It’s all a distraction from the fact that he is essentially a donkey like me turning the millstone.

I can’t say that the Krishnamurti teaching yielded no fruit for me. If I hadn’t renounced, I could be like a donkey pulling in an 80-hour week trying to feed my family. I would have become the caretaker of four bodies (me, wife, and two kids) instead of one.

[DanMcD]

@sree

I can’t say that the Krishnamurti teaching yielded no fruit for me. If I hadn’t renounced, I could be like a donkey pulling in an 80-hour week trying to feed my family. I would have become the caretaker of four bodies (me, wife, and two kids) instead of one.

But then at least you would have been helpful, right?

[sree]

@DanMcD

But then at least you would have been helpful, right?

Helpful to what and to whom? Siddharta could have been helpful because he already had a family before he renounced. I am like Jesus who avoided the karma of marriage and family.

How many bodies are you taking care of, Dan? You wouldn’t be able to see it the way I do. They are not human bodies to you. They are family.

[DanMcD]

@sree

You wouldn’t be able to see it the way I do. They are not human bodies to you. They are family.

I don’t understand you here Sree, can you elaborate?

[sree]

@DanMcD

I don’t understand you here Sree, can you elaborate?

Of course, I can elaborate. I could write a book on that. Remember what Inquiry said about our attachment to delusion, and that ”we don’t realize that being self-centered is not the best way to go about being human”? I suspect that Inquiry was referring to the self-center that you and every Krishnamurti reader would identify with as the psychological image. I was in that camp also before I renounced my former lifestyle to find out what Krishnamurti meant by “negation”. After I quit my job to go away to live by myself, I persisted in doing exactly what Inquiry advocated: “watch our every thought, every decision, every impulse and reaction” based on the assumption that I, the self-center, the psychological image, was the problem.

Fast-forward a few years of thought-watching, I realized that I had not been doing anything else other than taking care of my body. I was living the austere life of an ascetic alone by myself wherever I went in a crowded world. In what way could I be a problem to anyone including myself? Still, the idea that “I am the problem” hung in the air like original sin. At that point, I dumped all that self-flagellation the way Siddharta chucked his spiritual practices with the arhats.

Now, let’s deal with your query about why you wouldn’t be able to see the way I do. First of all, I now see the self-center as my physical form stripped of sentiment while you see it as your psychological image which is the person with a wife and sons and daughters. I see a rag while you see a flag. I see the fact while you see the symbolism. Krishnamurti said: “The word ‘door’ is not the door.” His teaching wasn’t helpful and I had to find out for myself what the hell he was pointing to. I am skeptical that I am even being helpful here with my explanation, Dan. But let’s plod on.

Perception is conditioned by the self-center. You are what you see: your entire world including you, the observer at the center of observation. This is how perception works. The whole tapestry of existential reality is seen in one movement. Earth cannot be visualized in isolation but only in relationship and context with the rest of the physical universe. “You are the world, and the world is you” (Krishnamurti). Dan, at the center, can only be perceived in context with the rest of his world. And your world is not my world. In other words, your consciousness is yours and not mine.

Let’s stop here. I am beginning to sound like Krishnamurti 2.0.

[Inquiry]

@sree

At that point, I dumped all that self-flagellation the way Siddharta chucked his spiritual practices with the arhats.

Watching oneself in action is “flagellation” if you’re doing it for reward or gratification. But if you’re doing it for its own sake, you can’t find anything better to do.

[sree]

@Inquiry

Watching oneself in action is “flagellation” if you’re doing it for reward or gratification. But if you’re doing it for its own sake, you can’t find anything better to do.

You said that “the ego/self is insanity”, that being self-centered is the worst way to go about being human and that we must watch our every thought, or we are assuming that we are not the problem.

The reward or gratification for watching thought is the attainment of freedom from being self-centered, the ending of insanity, or “negation of the self”, as Krishnamurti put it. Yes?

Are you telling me that you are watching thought for its own sake because you can’t find anything better to do? Why would you not consider this as another form of insanity? There are many pursuits in life that are undertaken for their own sake because people can’t find anything better to do. They are called hobbies. Some involve risk to life and limb.

[Inquiry]

@sree

The reward or gratification for watching thought is the attainment of freedom from being self-centered, the ending of insanity, or “negation of the self”, as Krishnamurti put it. Yes?

No. If my false identity is seeking reward by watching thought, its reward is increasing ability to control thought through suppression and incitement. Its reward is a stronger sense of itself. But if the mind, despite its false sense of itself. watches its movement, its reactions, impulses, fears, desires, etc., to find out what it is actually doing, it will find out, which means, be free.

I don’t know of anything better to do than watch what I do when I know that I don’t really know what I’m doing. Call it a hobby or call it insanity, but isn’t it insane to persist in doing what you are unaware of because you believe you know what you’re doing? If you had only a clue that your behavior might be heedless, wouldn’t you want to find out?

[sree]

@Inquiry

No. If my false identity is seeking reward by watching thought, its reward is increasing ability to control thought through suppression and incitement. Its reward is a stronger sense of itself. But if the mind, despite its false sense of itself. watches its movement, its reactions, impulses, fears, desires, etc., to find out what it is actually doing, it will find out, which means, be free.

Find out what? Seriously, keeping a focus on how this self-watching got started (i.e. it all began with Krishnamurti egging us on to find out), what does it mean to be free?

@Inquiry

I don’t know of anything better to do than watch what I do when I know that I don’t really know what I’m doing.

You’ve got me all in knots here, mentally-speaking. Let me paraphrase what you said. Are you telling me that you don’t know what you do when you watch what you do? Is that what you mean?

@Inquiry

Call it a hobby or call it insanity, but isn’t it insane to persist in doing what you are unaware of because you believe you know what you’re doing?

Here is another mind-bender: “to persist in doing what you are unaware of because you believe you know what you are doing”. Give me an example, a way of life or someone behaving this way to illustrate what you mean.

@Inquiry

If you had only a clue that your behavior might be heedless, wouldn’t you want to find out?

This one takes the cake. How can anyone have a clue when one is clueless (i.e. heedless)? You seem to be speaking from an awakened state to sleepwalkers. Krishnamurti was speaking to us like that and he had gotten me into a dark place as caretaker of a human body. He is gone but you are here in our midst. Will you answer my questions? I am neither seeking reward nor gratification. Krishnamurti’s assertion which you are reiterating didn’t make sense. I would appreciate your clarifying it for me.