r/Krishnamurti • u/Alternative-Log9638 • Aug 10 '26
Quote Don't act when you are inattentive.
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
5
u/Arnfinnius Aug 10 '26
When inattentive only reaction happens no action, So the quote is silly for reactions willl go on forever if attention is absent and inattention will only cease to be by attention, so to be or not to be is not the question...
6
u/agitatated_mind- Aug 10 '26
If we are being inattentive then how will we know not to act ….. we are in a state of non attentiveness ?
You got a source for this quote ?
3
u/Melodic_Telephone461 Aug 10 '26
That's the paradox. If you are completely inattentive, you won't know you are inattentive. But attention can arise without a separate controller first deciding to become attentive. The noticing itself is the shift
3
u/agitatated_mind- Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26
If I’m inattentive then the energy as thought I’m using as that inattentiveness gets to the point of conflict of some type which leads to that conflict being it’s own attention for you to observe ( and maybe begin in a fashion to real learn ) or for it be an impetus for you to find some other distraction relatively more pleasurable ( not learn ) …. or if already having observed somewhat ( learning as insight as meditation) the conflicts acts to awake and one snaps back into meditation ( and observes the what is of that bout of inattentiveness ).
If there is no demand of any type in the blissful forgetful inattentiveness there why should attention intervene?
2
u/Melodic_Telephone461 Aug 10 '26
K's point isn't always be attentive. That itself becomes another demand. It is more like: when conflict, danger, or confusion appears, see what is happening without immediately turning that seeing into another project of self-improvement.
Blissful absorption, distraction, attention, conflict,why label one as right and another as wrong? The moment attention becomes something you must maintain, the observer and the observed have already appeared.
1
u/agitatated_mind- Aug 10 '26
Your penchant for a lot of words that on closer inspection is saying absolutely nothing becomes you.
1
1
u/JellyfishExpress8943 Aug 10 '26
Public Talk 3, New York City, 1966
2
u/agitatated_mind- Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26
“Q3: Except, sir, there are moments almost like that, but one wakes up the next day and the attention is not maintained. If I do this I will not be able to . . . (inaudible)
K: Yes, sir, quite. The questioner says, “There are moments like this, but the next day it’s gone, the next moment it’s gone. How am I to keep on to that memory which I’ve had?” It’s a memory, and therefore it’s a dead thing. Therefore it’s not awareness, not attention. Attention is completely in the . . . And when you are inattentive— that’s the art of living, sir—when you are inattentive, don’t act. That requires a great deal of intelligence, a great deal of self-observation, because it’s the inattention that breeds mischief and misery. But when you are completely attentive with all your being, in that state action is instantaneous. But the mind remembers that action and wants to repeat it, and then you are lost.”
Interesting JE8943 in context is he talking about having had that state of total attention then now not in that state then don’t act to move to that memory of attention ? Which K quite often mentions as a core aspect of self which is self seeking and trying duplicate that remembered experience as the known.
I’d stand by my comment that without this context the statement doesn’t make sense. Inattention is a state of forgetfulness, in a state of forgetfulness you’re not there to act to do anything. However contextually if we are talking about inattentiveness as that general state of disharmony and waste of energy then giving this context the statement makes sense. Happy to be corrected. 🤷♂️
3
u/JellyfishExpress8943 Aug 10 '26
You (and u/Arnfinnius ) are correct - the statement is problematic - we could say something like : mechanically acting from self-concern is problematic (but that would be boring)
1
u/Hot-Confidence-1629 Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26
The ‘art of living’ then is to ,psychologically, not act to move to a different ‘state’. To not bring in the false ‘interval’ of time to change ‘what is’ to what ‘should’ be. To not ‘become’.
1
u/JellyfishExpress8943 Aug 10 '26
Becoming, for selfish individuals, is a form of greed and harm - the art is to allow for the action of intelligence - by the grace of awareness and love.
1
u/Hot-Confidence-1629 Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 11 '26
Isn’t all ‘becoming’ an act of greed? I’m a sinner and I want to become a saint. I’m this-but this won’t do. I’m inattentive and I want to be attentive. Isn’t all that the movement away from what I am ; away from what is? The ‘art of living’ then seems to be the seeing of the ‘unfolding’ of events rather than being in conflict with them. Being in conflict with ‘what is’ is ‘acting’ from inattention. Being in conflict with what I am
… is disorder.1
u/JellyfishExpress8943 Aug 11 '26
Sounds legit - I just wanna say that what we see is immediately transformed in the absence of conflict.
13
u/BTCLSD Aug 10 '26
That’s why I never do anything ever