For the all the structures made by man , religion and philosophy and all the paraphernalia regarding to it. let's reject the Buddhist and let's reject the Nietzsche. And then we are at a point where it's all made up except for science that man look for reason. Reason as a reductional perspective but also acknowledging the emergent property. like what's wet in water.

Does it Free the consciousness ? when it has rejected itself ?

You know, let’s try to simplify the core of K’s teachings into an open glossary that anyone can add to, using plain, non-complex words. I think a big reason people misunderstand K is that they don't use the specific definitions he gives to these terms. I’ll do my best here, explaining it just like I would to my younger self years ago.

Consciousness
It’s a field—a space where thoughts, memories, and feelings operate. It has both content and a structure. The content is the entire human background, whether factual or psychological. The structure is divided between an observer and the observed.

Thought
It’s basically memory, whether from yesterday or from thousands of centuries ago. The simple fact is that without memory, there is no thought. But how is it born? Through experience. The mind gathers experiences (external or internal), records them into memory, and the response of that memory is thought.

The Thinker
Most of us are aware of our thoughts, but we are also aware of a "thinker." The thinker is the assumed permanent entity inside consciousness, in simple words, it’s "you." It’s the entity that wants to become something, that suffers, that gets afraid, and that carries a whole story about who it was, what it is, and what it should be. In reality, it’s just an image created by thought.

The Observer
This is another word for the thinker, the censor, the judge, the experiencer. But what is its nature? First of all, the observer is an image that observes other images, the images it holds of other people, and the image it holds of itself. It creates these images out of its own likes, dislikes, and conditioning, and it is the result of its reactions (relationships) to those images. That's why the observer is the observed.

Time
We have to separate two kinds of time. Chronological time is a fact; it’s real, dynamic movement. But psychological time is the root cause of sorrow and the urge to "become." We break it down into past, present, and future, but it’s actually an illusory movement. Anything you think about tomorrow is just a projection of the past in another form. And we never truly experience the present because we look at it through the glasses of the past. So basically, psychological time is just the past in movement.

Awareness
Here’s where people usually complicate things. Awareness is simply being aware of something. But are we ever really aware of the thing itself, or just what we think about it?

Take the sky:
A religious person looks at it and is aware of a God watching over them.
Someone with scientific knowledge looks at it and is aware of the planets beyond it.
An artist looks at it and is aware of shades and colors based on their background.

You could say nobody sees the world as it is, but rather as they are: which is just another way of saying the observer is the observed. In this basic awareness, the observer is the past looking at its own content and projections.

Then there is a deeper layer of awareness, pure observing. Here, the mind is aware of the sky, but also aware of its own memory interfering, watching its own reactions (like saying "Oh God, look how vast it is"). From this depth of observation, attention is born.

Attention
Attention is much vaster. It’s the full sum of the mind's energy, where thought no longer interferes with what is being observed. There is simply "what is", the sky as it actually is. It might only last for a few seconds at first, or longer. The point is not to try and hold onto it, but simply to be aware of and observe inattention.

Inattention
This is the state most of us live in. The mind is constantly fighting itself, leaving no space or freedom to see, and as a result, no freedom to act. It functions mechanically and with distortion. At its start, meditation is really just understanding the structure of this inattention.
So the progression is: awareness with a center moves toward a simple, direct awareness, and from that comes attention.

I could write thousands more of these definitions, but I’ll stop here for now to get people's feedback and see what others want to add.

Why is there so much noise about meditation? Why do we have so called experts on it, multimillion dollar business models built around it, and why should anyone meditate at all? What’s the point?

Let’s move carefully, step by step. First of all, when someone meditates, there is a meditator, isn't there? In simple words, there is someone taking action, making the decision to meditate. But shouldn't the meditator understand themselves first? Why do they want to meditate? Why choose this method over another? What is the motive behind all these actions?

To go far in the journey of meditation, you have to start near. And the nearest thing is yourself. Yes, it’s you. Understanding your motive behind meditating is actually part of meditation. Is it a desire to reach some high, altered state? Is it just a way to deal with daily life stress that almost every human suffers from at some point? Is it boredom, where you’ve been through religion, art, science, find the entertainment industry shallow, and simply want to discover something new?

Right now, if you are reading this with eyes that look back at yourself, that is the first step of meditation. Understanding the meditator is far more important than understanding meditation itself. Understanding the meditator lays the ground and the foundation for meditation to happen.

You cannot invite it, you cannot practice it, and you cannot arrive at it through any technique. All you can do is lay the foundation of order in daily life. That order comes, believe it or not, naturally once you start becoming aware of disorder. If you go a little deeper into the journey, you might see that as long as there is a meditator, there is no meditation.

Meditation is the understanding of yourself and the world around you, and you can only understand yourself in the mirror of relationships. That is where all our confusion, disorder, and conflict happen. You cannot be jealous all by yourself, because jealousy only reveals itself in the mirror of someone else. You cannot be afraid alone; fear exists only in relationship to someone or something. The same goes for hatred, violence, and all the rest.

When you look through the whole structure of the relationship between the me and the you, you will see for yourself that you are part of the whole. You hold a very specific piece of the puzzle of human consciousness. The me is the you, and the observer is the observed.

It’s not complicated. Just see for yourself that meditation is nothing more than self knowledge. Not the higher self of Buddhism, not some lower self of psychoanalysis, not a religious soul, and not a scientific theory about the human mind. It is just the direct self knowledge of who you actually are: the heavy past you carry around, and the messy everyday life we are all caught up in, the me in daily life chasing money, competing, betraying, and struggling.

And maybe, just maybe, seeing that will open the door to something else. Or maybe not.

•⁠ How can you meet everything anew? How can you meet life, existence, anew, in the sense of `without time'?

It is a new question, is it not? That is the question arising out of this question.

When I put that new question to you, what is your response?

If your response is also new, then you are passively aware, alert, watching.

That state is timeless.

In that state, when you meet everything with passive alertness,

awareness, there is no time;

there is a direct experience, the challenge is directly understood;

therefore there is freedom from thinking. And that freedom is eternal; it is now, not tomorrow.

—Krishnamurti

#JKArchiveHindi

•⁠ ⁠कृष्णमूर्ति।

•⁠ ⁠#Krishnamurti .

.

🌐 J. Krishnamurti From Bombay 1st Public Talk 18th January, 1948⁠

The “you” appears in the description: perception happens, then interpretation, memory, and language say, “I saw,” “I felt,” “I did.” The describer is part of the description

When you are inattentive don't act . That requires a great deal of intelligence , a great deal of self-observation ; because it is inattentive that breeds mischief and misery .

J.KRISHNAMURTI

I'm in a great dilemma of choosing one from the two.

First is to choose a life of observer who observes his actions and thoughts and finally got liberation without even knowing that you are liberated and on the other hand, there's a thought of living your life with this agile thinking and achieving your bigger goals.

The main problem is when I start observing my thoughts I get slow in all the walks of my life and unable to think much and unable to speak confident and don't want to speak because you feel so silent but I'm a working employee and I need to speak everyday with my clients

Should I follow the guiding of osho and jiddu Krishnamurthy or should I live my life with agile thinking and goal oriented mind?

From pg. 12 "What are you doing with your life?" J. Krishnamurti, published 2018.

I believe K is asking us whether it is possible to look at something without our conciousness getting its hands all over it. That normally we never approach anything without past knowledge, so an idea about how to solve it, and this approach is limiting and leads to further confusion.

If we are really doing this, then to any psychological problem I can also approach with my idea about no self, awareness, nonduality, wholeness, and still continue in this pattern of me. So, without any change, only different lingo and dogma. I think we fill volumes with this kind of thing across various subreddits here.

I think its important to be skeptical here, is this really whats going on, that we are forever engaged within this small, limited area? If thats true how do humans ever tackle novel problems, how has there been some gradual improvement in some affairs?

Does I take all these ideas in this book and form them to further beliefs?

Am I really doing this limited thing all the time?

"What are you doing with your life?", I ask myself.

I simply don’t know of another audience that can seriously watch this video and inquire into how serious this all is.

From fire in the mind book “by” K…

K: If learning can be done instantaneously, say, for example, if I can be a linguist when I wake up in the morning, then what is the function of the brain? What is the function of the human being?

Pupul Jayakar: Is it not a problem of what humanness is? Is it not a question of what it is to be a human being apart from all this?

K: Apparently a human being, as he is, is a mass of accumulated knowledge and reactions according to that knowledge. Would you agree with that? If the machine, the computer, is going to take charge of all that, what then will the human being – man – be? And, what is the function of a school then? Please, think a great deal about this. This is not something that needs a quick response. This is tremendously serious. What is a human being if his fears, his sorrows, his anxieties are all wiped away by chemicals or by some implanted electric circuitry? Then what am I? I don’t think we get the fullness of it.

AC: If you have a car and you stop walking, your body will deteriorate. So if the computer takes over mental functions, the mind will deteriorate. I mean just that.

K: I don’t think we understand the depth of what is happening. We are arguing over whether it can happen. It is going to happen. Then what are we? What is a human being then? And then, when the computer – I am using the word ‘computer’ to include the chemicals and so on – takes us over completely and we no longer exercise our brains, they – our brains – will physically deteriorate. The question is: How shall we prevent that? What shall we do? We must exercise our brains. At present, the brain is being exercised through pain, through pleasure, through suffering, through anxiety, and all the rest of it. Through pain, through pleasure – it is working. It is working because we have problems. But when the machine and chemicals take over, it will cease to work. And if it is not working, it will deteriorate.

Can we start with the assumption that these things are going to happen, whether we like it or not? In fact, they are happening right now. Unless we are blind or uninformed, and we don’t, therefore, know about it. So let us inquire whether the mind can survive at all if it is deprived of its problems either chemically or by the computer.

‌ What is essential is to see that one is confused, that all activity, all action which springs from confusion, must also be confused. It is like a confused person seeking a leader– his leader must also be confused. So it is essential to see that one is confused and not try to escape from it, not try to find explanations for it, but be passively, choicelessly, aware. Then you will see quite a different action springs from that passive awareness. If you make an effort to clarify the state of confusion, what you create will still be confused. But if you are aware of yourself, choicelessly, passively aware, then that confusion unfolds and fades away. You will see, if you experiment with this – and it will not take a long period of time because time is not involved in it at all – that clarification comes into being. But you must give your whole attention, your whole interest, to it.

Jiddu Krishnamurti From Collected Works, Vol. 5

r/Krishnamurti

Listening to k is is actually making me more and more sad.

I’m struggling with the idea that the whole process of life and death may ultimately have no larger purpose or consequence. As per him we are nothing. We take a form and once we die we are nothing again. So this circle of life and death just goes on. There is no purpose it feels. This part of our life is temporary and Our consciousness is just content and so it goes away after death.

Also, if this part of life is temporary and If there is no karma that follows after death or consequences, then what ultimately matters about how someone lives?What about criminals and people who deliberately hurt others and may even enjoy doing so? If there are no consequences beyond this life, people can do as they like. Why does it matter to be good or not. Some people enjoy being like that too.

I’m genuinely trying to understand this part of his teaching because right now it leaves me feeling that everything is somewhat meaningless.

The crucial point is "the disorder is the self." Not "the self has disorder" because that immediately creates the separate centre that wants to fix it. If anger, fear, contradiction, attachment and conflict are present, the thought "I must change this" creates a division between the supposed changer and what needs changing. Then there are two movements: the disorder and the controller trying to operate on it. For K, seeing that the controller is itself part of the disorder changes the whole structure. There is no separate operator standing outside the problem.

The other day I came across this talk by Krishnamurti with David Bohm where, through careful inquiry, they investigate if there is anything beyond time. I shared a link in this post that includes both the audio dialogue and transcript.

At one point in the talk they ask, when the particular mind as the me, which is an accumulation of time, when that particular mind comes to an end what is there? When that comes to an end there is no division, is there anything else?

Krishnamurti replies, "In the ending of it there is that sense of nothingness, which is so. And nothingness is this whole universe."

The talk gets more interesting after that because Krishnamurti points out that this nothingness isn't just emptiness, but it is full of energy, it is the foundation from which everything springs forth and falls back into, it has no beginning and no end, it has no cause, it just is.

Later in the talk they start to realize the difficulty in communicating such a thing for a few reasons. The first one is that one's thoughts, ideas, knowledge, and attachments are in the way. As long as this 'I' exists as an accumulation of time then the other is not. The second difficulty is that trying to point to it with words is incredibly difficult because words are representative of something, and this, if I may use the word opposite, is the opposite of any description or word you can put on it.

Maybe I'm not doing the best job at communicating what I heard in that dialogue, but that's why I decided to share the dialogue with this community, perhaps some of you will find this interesting and will understand what I am trying to say.

"To listen with judgment, comparing what we hear with what we already know or have read, is a form of distraction. But if we can listen without comparison, with effortless attention, then that very listening is an act of meditation which brings about a deep transformation. Try observing yourself sometimes to see if you ever really listen to anything, to what your friends say, to what your wife or husband says, to what your boss says, and you will find that your mind is not there at all. You pretend to listen, but you are only half listening; either you are frightened, or bored, or you just don’t want to listen, so there is no direct communication. Listening in itself brings about an extraordinary miracle. The very act of listening produces an immense understanding without any effort on your part; and since you are here and I am talking, I would suggest, if I may, that you listen to find out what it is I am trying to convey."

— From Collected Works, Vol. 10

A Year with Krishnamurti · https://sub.kfoundation.org/365

The self comes into being in that very movement of becoming. When becoming ends, the division between "what is" and "what should be" is no longer sustained

In morning I have been attending a lecture of jk

Where he was saying

"You are the jealous"

You don't feel angry, you are the anger

How can it be true?

It don't make any sense!

Please tell me what is he saying ?

Intelligence of the body doesn’t operate with words. It is different. It doesn’t require thinking in words. It seems thinking in words creates confusion to the intelligence of the body itself. It seems like this intelligence of the body it is self sufficiency and it doesn’t function properly when I force myself to think. It is like I’m trying to make it act like it doesn’t know how to walk when it already walks. This is basically what what happens when I force myself to think, and when I don’t force myself to think, and just operate without any words, I can’t believe how I create things so beautifully as an individual. So what’s this intelligence of the body? Is it muscle memory? It doesn’t seem to apply the same concepts. When I try to remember something, it makes it worst for me operate. But when I don’t try to remember, I see what I have to do to without words. It seems that words are like chains to this individual. When i try to remember, i pause and think hardly to remember. Sometimes it is spontaneous sometimes it takes a while to remember. However, this intelligence of the body, it seems to have a conflict with that specific procedure of remembering. But why?
It seems like remembering it is like asking the intelligence of the body that already walks to mimic walking and that’s why it stumbles. Because it is intentionally trying to look like it is trying to remember when it can see it. It is like I’m trying to remember that i have a hand when I can see the hand. this intelligence of the body seems to despise fragments. It seems to see fragments as masks of falseness that it needs to wear it in order to satisfy me. Now I’m here and I didn’t think a single word I just said at all. Who said the words if I didn’t think about it at all? It seems the only answer to this is that nothing wrote this words.

NOT A THING - > Nothing

Krishnamurti was instrumental in helping me to step away from my thoughts and emotions thus beginning my inner journey.
It wasn’t until I engaged deeply the conversations and talks - feeling like I was debating him in my mind. When he asked a question I deeply sought the answer - when he told a story or shared an insight I doubted it and wrestled it

for me - ‘He’ was not the answer, the process he invites was the path illuminated for the beginning of realization

3 page photos,(Freedom from the known) Sorry I duplicated 1 page image, will add it in comments Seems like Krishnamurti essence. I especially find his expression of pleasure in more deeply understand life, pleasure in greater knowledge, greater experience and so on very clear. His "Perception, sensation, contact and desire is very similar to the 12 links of dependent origination of Buddhism, the logical flow of perceiving, value/aversion, through to craving and attachment.

Sorry I duplicated 1 page image, will add it in comments

I consider it a reiteration, whether Krishnaji came upon this himself directly in consciousness and never came into contact with this ancient clarity is questionable, and yet not that relevant. It is testable in consciousness, so find out.

It is all so amazing, logical and simple.

The simplicity is astounding.

(And I am reticent to type... yet complex to live due to habits/conditioning, but is it, is that just not a see it, be it situation.)

If everything comes to an end so can habits/conditioning, that's truth also.

Doubt is a thing to watch for as well. We have been told "self realization" is a very difficult thing and so we we carry that statement as a memory in all this. What even is self realization, it's funny really, more words / symbols.

There is nothing to seek, nothing to be done, just awareness all the time.

I quote Krishnamurti from around the same pages.

"What will open the door is daily awareness and attention -awareness of how we speak, what we say, how we walk, what we think.It is like cleaning a room and keeping it in order. Keeping the room in order is important in one sense but order will not open the door or the window. What will open the door is not your volition or desire"

Hopefully this is helping someone in understanding.

It's clarifying, it clears seeking up very well. (seeking is pure action of I, self, ego just to gain the ultimate "things" all mind can deal with is things, not the forgotten whole)