To be in a state of suffering and confusion without understanding it is ignorance in the deepest sense of that word.

When ignorance meets with suffering, it escapes into pleasure, belief, ideology, because that is our tradition. Krishnamurti says that to dispel ignorance we have to see ?what is?. ?What is?, for most of us, is the human condition. We are the world and the world is us. That is why Krishnamurti talk so much about suffering, violence and illusion and so on. But somehow we don't think that the human condition applies to us. The problem, Manoj, is not that we are not this - the human condition - but that we don't see that we are it.

I see Krishnamurti as someone who has understood the human condition and gone beyond. However, it seems to me that we focus on what we see as his promise of enlightenment, and do not care much about understanding the human condition. We think that adopting the teachings as our ideology will bring clarity ? but if we are at all perceptive, we also see that intellectual understanding is not enough. We consider ?how to have a non-intellectual understanding? as the final problem. But trying to understand this problem from an ideological state just creates more confusion.
It seems to me that a non-verbal understanding of ourselves is necessary for a non-verbal understanding of the teachings and the other way round. And the first step is to see that we are it - the human condition. Dissociating ourselves from it is the very nature of ignorance.

What do you think of the above statement? Is there a logical flaw? How do you approach the human condition and self-knowledge (or you don't?)?

Rasmus

Rasmus Tinning wrote:
We think that adopting the teachings as our ideology will bring clarity ? but if we are at all perceptive, we also see that intellectual understanding is not enough. We consider ?how to have a non-intellectual understanding? as the final problem. But trying to understand this problem from an ideological state just creates more confusion. It seems to me that a non-verbal understanding of ourselves is necessary for a non-verbal understanding of the teachings and the other way round. And the first step is to see that we are it - the human condition. Dissociating ourselves from it is the very nature of ignorance.

Adopting teaching intellectually is not enough. Non verbal understanding of ourselves happens when I see that I am not separate from ''what is''. The division is false. I negate the division. This act of negation is the end of Observer, the past. There is just what is. The suffering, violence, strife... Not escaping, the energy of what is is not dissipated. There is passion and humility of not knowing in this undivided suffering.

You said it right - we are it - the human condition..

Thanks for sharing...

I Am Not This!

Dear Rasmus,

What you wrote in the above is perfect. Even sharing your thoughts through words is so much the "human experience". We are ultimatly trapped in our words, with all their histories, and definitions.

So, can I communicate with you through my own experience, not giving it a word, a label, just observing?

In this place I am you and the cycle of human experience is gone.

The great sufferer