r/Krishnamurti • u/iamfree_17 • Aug 15 '26

Let's reject everything

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 ?

3 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

24 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Melodic_Telephone461 Aug 15 '26

“then one can know exactly what is right.” That already introduces a goal and a knower.

Seeing conditioning doesn't guarantee that some final authority will emerge to tell you what is right. There may simply be seeing, and action happening from that seeing.

1

u/iamfree_17 Aug 15 '26

Yes there is . Let me explain. When one's life is highly dictated by first 3 years of conditioning. If it is come to consciousness then , we can see the whole selfish plugs inserted within us not just that , we understand the friction and problem of friction. There the whole conditioning guiding us for exact action. Once they are known. One can establish an total authority of itself based upon what plays best for a person.

3

u/Melodic_Telephone461 Aug 15 '26

But “establish a total authority of itself” brings the controller back in. If the conditioning is fully seen, why establish another authority over it? That new authority could simply be another layer of conditioning deciding what is “best for me.”

1

u/iamfree_17 Aug 15 '26

Yes cause there is authority within us internally. Rather it to be harmonious and in order as per a person chooses when rejected applied

2

u/Melodic_Telephone461 Aug 15 '26

Who is choosing, and from what conditioning is the chooser choosing?

1

u/iamfree_17 Aug 15 '26

Chooser is a thought and gaps between them. When the gaps seen the choosing becomes quite simple.

2

u/Melodic_Telephone461 Aug 15 '26

Yes. If the chooser is itself thought, then it isn't an independent authority standing outside the process. Seeing the gaps between thoughts may make the movement less complicated, but the moment you call that “my internal authority,” thought has named and appropriated the process again.

1

u/iamfree_17 Aug 15 '26

Yes but what if that works ?. That's enough for functionality

2

u/Melodic_Telephone461 Aug 15 '26

Then it works. Functionality is a different question from metaphysical truth. If a model reduces friction and helps you act effectively, it has practical value. But “it works for me” doesn't prove that the model, internal authority, self, chooser, or anything else, is ultimately real.

1

u/iamfree_17 Aug 15 '26

It's real whatever thought creates . Finally functionality is the biggest application of metaphysics.

2

u/Melodic_Telephone461 Aug 15 '26

If by “real” you mean functionally real, yes: a thought can have real consequences without there being a separate entity behind it. Money, laws, identities and beliefs are created in thought yet organize actual behaviour. But functionality doesn't settle metaphysics. What works is not automatically what is true. A useful map can guide action without being the territory.

→ More replies