More on this book
Kindle Notes & Highlights
You cannot observe if you are saying “This is right” and “This is wrong”,
Yet you say these things constantly
Now, if it is learnt from another, one has to discard that totally, hasn’t one? You have to discard all that has been said just now by the speaker about the implications of control, discipline, authority and so on; then you become aware that what has been pointed out to you must be totally rejected in order to learn. If you have rejected what others, including the speaker, have said, then you are actually learning, aren’t you?
Holy cow. Major contradiction at the end there. He has already figured out what he believes and cannot find a new conclusion. It's Ironic.
How do you find out what order is when you don’t know anything about
He says after claiming to know something about order
I only know what disorder is,
How can you know what disorder is without an understanding of order?
When such a mind says, “I do not know”, then it is totally free. It has denied the disorder and because it is free, it has found order. Do you understand this?
He is arguing that static (hopeless) ignorance = order...
Nobody, no teacher, no guru, no saviour, no philosopher, can teach you what order is;
Yet you just claimed to do that very thing
happen to sit on the platform because it is more convenient, because you can see me and I can see you. It is of no account whether you are sitting up here or down there—we are taking a journey together into a world in which there is neither height nor depth; it is that world which we are trying to understand.
What a cheap deflection
You know, when you listen with attention, with affection, with care, are you confused? It is only when you are not listening and you want to listen that confusion arises.
Not unless you're listening to lunacy
What is action? Action is not future or past action, but acting. Is it the result of a conclusion and acting according to that conclusion? Or is it based on some belief and acting according to the belief? Is it based on some experience and acting according to that experience or knowledge? If it is, then action is always in the past, our relationship is always in the past, never in the present.
Fallacy. One of the foundational errors most of his mistaken conclusions are based on
have built a wall round myself; the wall being myself concerned with myself, with my future, my happiness, my health, my God, with my belief, my success, my misery—you follow?
He HAS with is belief espoused here constructed a wall around his understanding
see that if I have one single image, there is no possibility of any relationship, because images separate and where there is separation there must be conflict, not only nationally but between human beings; that is clear.
So many flimsy assumptions derived from each other
If I am attentive, aware, then there is no building of images.
Read: if i am utterly passive i will never sully my ignorance
Apparently this is not your problem, because if it were the real, deep, vital problem in your life, you would have solved it for yourself instead of sitting here waiting for me to find the answer for you.
What a dick
Now if the mind is attentive and does not move away from suffering at all, then you will see that out of total attention comes not only energy—which means passion—but also that suffering comes to an end. In the same way, all images can end instantly when there is no preference for any image; this is very important. When you have no preference, you have no prejudice. Then you are attentive, then you can look. In that observation there is not only the understanding of the building of images, but also the ending of all images.
Are you being stimulated at this moment? If you are, then the speaker is just as good as a drug.
Fallacy without a reductive definition of stimulate
So the mind must learn how to look. That, for me, is the central problem. Can this mind, which is the result of time, of various cultures, experiences and knowledge, look with eyes that are not conditioned? That is, can it operate instantly, being free of its conditioning?
Now it becomes a little more difficult. Is love pleasure? Is love fulfilment? If you really want to have a mind that has love, you have to go into it very deeply. We are asking: is love pleasure, gratification, fulfilment? We said that the demand for pleasure is the continuity of thought, which pursues pleasure as desire and will, separate from “what is”. We have associated love with sex, and because there is pleasure in it we have made an extraordinary thing of it. Sex has become the most important thing in life. We have tried to find some deep meaning in it, a deep reality, a sense of great
...more
Look, Sir, we are not talking about change.
You Literally just talked about change.
You may understand one part of the content of the conscious and another part you may not know anything about at all. So do you know the content of your conscious mind?
That's Unconsciousness. He's Doing semantic dances to avoid saying anyone but him is right
Now you have only one means of examination, which is: to look at the unconscious consciously.
Wrong. As stated: you can look at its manifestations
Questioner: I think the problem is deeper. What you know, what you are aware of, that is your conscious; everything you are not aware of, don’t know about, that is your unconscious. KRISHNAMURTI: I understand; that is what he said just now. Please give a few minutes thought to what somebody else has said, which is: if I don’t know the content of my superficial consciousness, can that consciousness, which is not complete in the understanding of its superficiality, examine the unconscious? That is what you are doing now, aren’t you? You are trying to observe the unconscious consciously. No?
He's Ignoring the questioner's correct assertion to continue with his fallacious b.s. Basing it on the lie that the consciousness can in any way be unknown
KRISHNAMURTI: We are going to find out, don’t say, “It must be.”
You say "obviously" constantly
Does one realise one’s consciousness is its content? Do you understand my statement? The content makes up consciousness. So consciousness is not separate from its content; the content is consciousness. Is that absolutely clear?
An oversimplification that he takes as obviously true. Put al the parts of a car in a pile. It's the content of the but not the car. He confuses content with a process. Consciousness is not a thing. It's an activity.
The brain is not forcing itself to be quiet. If it is forcing itself to be quiet then it is still the operation of the past. In that there is division, there is conflict, there is discipline and all the rest of it. But if the old brain understands, or sees the truth—that as long as it is in constant response to any stimulus, it must operate along the old lines—if the old brain sees the truth of that, then it becomes quiet. It is the truth that brings about quietness—not the intention to be quiet.
That is an absolute fact, not a theory.
Says you
So follow this: I want certainty of tomorrow, and certainty can only exist where there is knowledge, when I say, “I know”. Can I know anything except the past? The moment I say “I know” it is already the past. When I say “I know my wife”, I know her in terms of the past. In the past there is certainty and in the future there is uncertainty. So I want to draw the future into the past so that I will be completely safe. I see fear arises where thought is operating; if I did not think about tomorrow there would be no fear.
Therefore I have to understand what it is to live now. I don’t understand what it is to live now, nor have I understood what it is to live in the past, therefore I want to live in the future, which I don’t know, as I don’t know what the present is. So I am asking, can I live completely, wholly, today? I can only do that when I have understood the whole machinery and the functioning of thought, and in the very understanding of the reality of thought there is silence. And where the mind is quiet there is no future, no time.
When I say to myself: there is tremendous sorrow in the world, of which I am part—as I am the world and the world is me—that is a fact. It is not an idea, not a sentiment, not an emotional assertion; it is an absolute fact that I am the world and the world is me.
He continues with this underlying error that is belied by a meaningful semantic stumble: first says he is part of the world and then says he is the world. Rhetorically a significant difference, especially for his purposes
There is no division between the world and me. The community is me, the culture is me and I am that culture; so there is no division. I don’t know if you see and feel that?
This is unexplained and based on what he claims is an obvious feeling. He would mock his audience for making similar assertions.
And yet thought has brought about violence, and thought is not love. So one has to have the clarity of thought in function, and yet be aware that thought does breed all the misery in the world.
Think nothing and love everything and when an earthquake kills your family feel no misery because you are thoughtless.
The very assertion of that is thought, isn’t it?
Man. Then every assertion you've made is thought too and now you've trapped yourself.
The really serious people have enquired deeply into this. And yet, thought has been their major instrument and therefore they have never solved this problem.
What is his major instrument then?
Therefore I am depending on dreams to reveal the hidden images, and the dependence on dreams makes me less and less awake during the waking hours—no?
No
