"As long as you are attempting to become something, as long as you are possessed by something, there will inevitably be conflict, confusion, and increasing misery. Your activities, your thoughts, the very structure of your existence are based on conflict and confusion, and therefore on the process of disintegration.
As long as you are unwilling to be nothing—which, in fact, you are—you must inevitably breed sorrow and antagonism. The willingness to be nothing is not a matter of renunciation or of enforcement, inner or outer, but of seeing the truth of what is. Seeing the truth of what is brings freedom from the fear of insecurity—the fear that breeds attachment and leads to the illusion of detachment."
— Krishnamurti
Commentaries on Living, Series I
My rebuttal:
Krishnamurti HAS to be talking about a duality. It HAS to be the cause. The case he made for being nothing vs attachment. The terms in favor of his argument as supposition are not mutually exclusive. This is undeniable.
" Seeing the truth of what is brings freedom from the fear of insecurity—"
Krishnamurti applies that nothingness is an operative element. (i.e. being nothing = truth and awareness for this itself is why we are free) Whereas attachment devalues or disintegrates one's wholeness of thought and pervades the experiencer's survival informing fear from attachment.
My own understanding is into how disambiguation frees the mind from attachment, only because in terms of being nothing (fear evaporates) do we act.
- Marco
No comments:
Post a Comment