r/Krishnamurti

Thought creates the thinker. The energy required, the physical ‘ resources ‘ as the sensation which is this, what is, “ mental self masterbation as an idea of who I am “ necessarily is the conflict we are. The maintaining of the ID is always a struggle and always taxing to the body. So thought seeking a way to end this turmoil comes upon K ( those that at least have the ability to go beyond belief ). K talks about this structure which is what we merely are consciously while we are consciously merely that ( consciousness is its content ). K talks about an ending. We read,  we see to an extent which is the intellectual logic of what he is saying and so the thinker seeks to end but ! thought as the thinker IS thought continuing as it’s supposed end.

K said this about a thousand times in his lectures he gave over the period of about sixty years and there were people who followed him around for sixty years still treating his teachings from some standpoint. There are people here in this subreddit treating K discussions as if they are this mere discussion from that individuals standpoint of view. What is the standpoint ?  It is the self trying to work out the self from the standpoint of the self and which has nothing to do with the cold hard fact of actually seeing the nature of the ‘ standpoint’ nor the structure of the standpoint and is it all merely the standpoint ( thinker thought has created ) looking after and continuing as  it’s own safe space ? 

It’s the whole action that’s the problem ( but don’t look at it ( thought ) as it is a problem… that needs a looker ). What can one do. K has mentioned again a thousand times nothing which is not nothing from some ‘ standpoint ‘ of some idea of nothing. It’s to see the whole movement, all that energy, all that learning we have acquired individually and via this collective stream of consciousness is itself, it’s to see the thinking animal thing human consciousness is as the separate thinker IS it’s own continuation. It’s to see this little bubble of comfort which the centre is, this feeling of who we are ( until some sh1t hits the fan and then it’s a case of the bubble needing to readdress it’s self as some new learnt  action ) as the action of thought it actually is. Our standpoint, our living feeling of who are are is just this action of thought even continuing as its attempts to end itself as per some conversation you have accepted as right from a Krishnamurti book video. It’s the whole action that’s the ‘ problem’ including the ‘ standpoint ‘ ( centre ) of the action. 

Now let’s consider this from a standpoint of yet another post by this deranged annoying ars3hole agitated\_mind ( I don’t mind if you do ) and if choose to read this rambling mess then to consider from some standpoint of what he is on about. 

“ Now, is the thinker different from his thoughts? Does the thinker exist without thoughts? Is there a thinker apart from thought? Stop thinking, and where is the thinker? Is the thinker of one thought different from the thinker of another thought? Is the thinker separate from his thought, or does thought create the thinker who then identifies himself with thought when he finds it convenient and separates himself when it is not convenient?That is, what is the ‘I’, the thinker? Obviously, the thinker is composed of various thoughts which have become identified as the ‘me’. So the thoughts produce the thinker, not the other way round. If I have no thoughts then there is no thinker.“   
JK

https://preview.redd.it/j0dfontu0auh1.png?width=432&format=png&auto=webp&s=f29278982eb101c869ff822baacb30f5a31c75b2

How can one survive in a period of Total Psychological Insecurity? It drives most of us to insanity. It drives most of us to end our physical selves to escape the pain. We can infer that His brother was the anchor of his self/life up until that point. Without anchors one falls into a deep dark abyss, lonely by one self.

How long will you hide your deepest fears? Isnt it long enough time that we encounter them for what they are instead of going by our lives living a life divided into intellectual/spiritual and practical/real.

Sometimes I go through moments where I feel unusually peaceful, loving, open, and appreciative of myself, other people, and life in general.

In those moments, I can see beauty very deeply — not just in other people, but in myself too. There’s much less judgment, comparison, resistance, or inner conflict, and everything feels lighter.

But then it passes.

Later there can again be fear, attachment, insecurity, comparison, self-judgment, irritation, etc.

So I’ve been wondering whether even things like bliss, love, compassion, self-acceptance, or seeing beauty in yourself and others should really be treated as some final or “higher” state that you’re supposed to hold on to.

Are there actually people who feel like that almost all the time — consistently peaceful, loving, self-accepting, with high self-esteem and very little inner conflict? Or do these states naturally come and go even for people who seem very psychologically stable or deeply self-aware?

Because the moment I think:

>“This state is better. I want to stay like this.”

it feels like I’ve already created another form of attachment or psychological becoming.

Maybe the important thing isn’t whether the present moment contains bliss, sadness, fear, attraction, love, self-love, or conflict.

Maybe it’s simply about seeing clearly whatever is actually there, without trying to hold on to one state and get rid of another.

In that sense, maybe awareness or presence is more fundamental than any particular feeling.

So is the point not to become permanently blissful, peaceful, loving, self-accepting, or compassionate, but simply to be fully present with whatever is happening — not as another state to achieve, maintain, or become, but simply as being?

And if a beautiful state passes, is there actually anything lost? Or does the problem only begin when we want that state to stay permanently?