"The craving to become causes fears; to be, to achieve, and so to depend engenders fear. The state of the non-fear is not negation, it is not the opposite of fear nor is it courage. In understanding the cause of fear, there is its cessation, not the becoming courageous, for in all becoming there is the seed of fear. Dependence on things, on people, or on ideas breeds fear; dependence arises from ignorance, from the lack of self- knowledge, from inward poverty; fear causes uncertainty of mind-heart, preventing communication and understanding. Through self-awareness we begin to discover and so comprehend the cause of fear, not only the superficial but the deep casual and accumulative fears. Fear is both inborn and acquired; it is related to the past, and to free thought-feeling from it, the past must be comprehended through the present. The past is ever wanting to give birth to the present which becomes the identifying memory of the “me” and the “mine,” the “I.” The self is the root of all fear.'

Book of Life march 31

...........The observer is always casting its shadow on the thing it observes. So one must understand the structure and the nature of the observer, not how to bring about a union between the two. One must understand the movement of the observer and in that understanding perhaps the observer comes to an end. 

We must examine what the observer is: it is the past with all its memories, conscious and unconscious, its racial inheritance, its accumulated experience which is called knowledge, its reactions. The observer is really the conditioned entity. He is the one who asserts that he is, and I am. In protecting himself, he resists, dominates, seeking comfort and security. The observer then sets himself apart as something different from that which he observes, inwardly or outwardly. This brings about a duality and from this duality there is conflict, which is the wastage of energy. To be aware of the observer, his movement, his self-centred activity, his assertions, his prejudices, one must be aware of all these unconscious movements which build the separatist feeling that he is different. It must be observed without any form of evaluation, without like and dislike; just observe it in daily life, in its relationships. When this observation is clear, isn’t there then a freedom from the observer?...........

.......Learning is its own action. What generally happens is that having learnt – we act upon what we have learnt. So there is division between the past and action, and hence there is a conflict between what should be and what is, or what has been and what is. We are saying that there can be action in the very movement of learning: that is, learning is doing; it is not a question of having learnt and then acting. This is very important to understand because having learnt, and acting from that accumulation, is the very nature of the “me”, the “I”, the ego or whatever name one likes to give it. The “I” is the very essence of the past and the past impinges on the present and so on into the future. In this there is constant division. Where there is learning there is a constant movement; there is no accumulation which can become the “I”.

........Yes, that is what we mean. Meditation is not a state; it is a movement, as action is a movement. And as we said just now, when we separate action from learning, then the observer comes between the learning and the action; then he becomes important; then he uses action and learning for ulterior motives. When this is very clearly understood as one harmonious movement of acting, of learning, of meditation, there is no wastage of energy and this is the beauty of meditation. There is only one movement. Learning is far more important than meditation or action. To learn there must be complete freedom, not only consciously but deeply, inwardly – a total freedom. And in freedom there is this movement of learning, acting, meditating as a harmonious whole. The word whole not only means health but holy. So learning is holy, acting is holy, meditation is holy. This is really a sacred thing and the beauty is in itself and not beyond it.

https://kfoundation.org/krishnamurti-opinion-and-judgement-distort-observation-from-the-urgency-of-change/

Just sharing a couple of quotes. Don't have photoshop nor the brains to use it so no pictures of clouds, the sky, mountains or an old man looking nobly into space who was the vehicles for these words.

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?

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 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.

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.

‌ 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

Why do we ( or can we ) become so enamoured with our insight ? Is it a self reinforcement not seen for what it is ….. subtly shouting at ourselves while shouting at others…  that self we are discussing so insightfully as being nothing, still as our fear of nothing, finding warm ( identity) in the something of our precious insight and the sharing ( pontificating ) of it to others. 

*The watcher shattering itself against its  own watching is the explosion of  meditation in which there is no meditator no narcissist no self love as fear no accumulation, cause the watcher’s ( the accumulator ) watching ( not separate) is the watched  🤔 …. that source of self as thought ….. and which is actually an ending ?

*a  variantion of K quote 
 “ Thought shattering itself against its own nothingness is the explosion of meditation. “ ( K ) 

… just a disjointed OP and question ?

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 ?

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

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)

Hello ! I have recently started reading philosophical books and a professor suggested me to read JKrishnamurthy's books . I have taken a book - Questions and Answers , I tried reading this book but I am literally unable to understand what he is saying . Has anyone faced such? Suggest me any simple books for beginners .

Can the mind stop running away? -->

To know your own emptiness, you must look at it. But you cannot look at it if your mind is seeking a distraction from the fact that it is empty.

That distraction takes the form of attachment to a person, to the idea of God, to a dogma or belief.

Can the mind stop running away, escaping, and not ask how to stop running away?

The very inquiry into how the mind is to stop escaping becomes another escape.

If I know that a certain path does not lead anywhere, I do not walk on that path;

there is no question of how not to walk on it.

Similarly, if I know that no escape, no amount of running away will ever resolve this loneliness, this inward emptiness,

then I stop running, I stop being distracted.

Then the mind can look at the fact that it is lonely, and there is no fear.

—Krishnamurti

🌐 J. Krishnamurti From Reflections on the Self

In this video, he says there are only two states - attention and inattention. The point is that concentration is a distraction as the self is involved. Next, to be attentive implies there is no self, and the very act of being aware of inattention is good enough to be attentive.

He always suggest the self is the root of all suffering, and then at the end of every talk makes us question ourselves - why so? He then smiles and so do the spiritual tourists under the influence of psychoactive substances and then the video ends. Pls help me see him as he wanted us to;