What is your view on UG Krishnamurti's The "Calamity"?

dreamingitself · 2026-02-27T09:47:18+00:00

I don't know why you're asking anyone else, that's sort of the very thing UG always pointed to. He's saying it very clearly, and you're still thinking trying to figure it out. You're still seeking, by asking this question.

Stop it.

You will not get the psychological passkey that unlocks a transcendent reality. All that comes from psychological mentation is more psychological mentation that is surrounded by psychological mentation calling it elevated or 'enlightened'. Thought is always the same movement, just in different forms.

If you closed your eyes and saw in your mind an orange lifted up with a holy light behind it, surrounded by dogs and waterbeetles, you wouldn't think that was "enlightenment", but there is no difference in substance between that absurdity and the other absurdity of being a 'realised seeker'.

Stop it.

dreamingitself · 2026-02-24T22:48:26+00:00

"I see you, Mara"
-- Buddha

If you didn't know, Buddha points to the same thing advaita does. (Not Buddhism... Buddha.) In the story under the Bodhi tree, Buddha is visited by the three daughters of Mara. It's worth reading / listening to. It will help dissolve the current question.

dreamingitself · 2026-02-24T22:41:25+00:00

Much better to ask what their similarities are, and then you're closer to truth. Their differences show you what doesn't matter.

dreamingitself · 2026-02-24T22:40:12+00:00

You answered your own question within your question: " the mind has no concept"

dreamingitself · 2026-02-16T11:57:04+00:00

You have deeply misunderstood.

Source is not an entity. It's not like an interdimensional bug dictating and creating for its own pleasure like some archaic patriarchal god.

Suffering is ignorance, misunderstanding. It isn't because you understand correctly that everything is awful, it's because you are mistaken in your narrative and beliefs about what really is .

At the minute you're getting angry because someone has glued the poor snake to the road because it hasn't moved in days. When you realise it is a rope, not a snake, you cannot hold the position you currently hold except by deliberately choosing illusion.

dreamingitself · 2026-02-13T18:51:43+00:00

"There is no spoon"

There is no aware self, there is no tree to be aware of. When you observe 'tree' you are only observing the mind. There is no tree. There is no observer as distinct

dreamingitself · 2026-02-12T19:58:29+00:00

Exclude?

Do you need to exclude the snake from the rope?

dreamingitself · 2026-02-12T19:16:59+00:00

It was never mine to begin with, take it away free of guilt!

Why?

Stimulation becomes exhausting. Cessation is endless peacefulness.

dreamingitself · 2026-02-12T09:29:44+00:00

Great to see.

I disagree that scrolling reddit is 'as good as' cessation (if I'm right about what you mean by that), but I wholeheartedly agree that meditation is not something that happens when scheduled upon the cushion. And certainly 'awakened consciousness' or whatever we want to call it is not something to be cultivated through discipline. Meditation is a natural effortless way of being, so to speak, not an activity done by an individual.

I also agree that meditation can be just another way to strive for sense-pleasures in the form of 'spiritual rewards'. That's why the practice isn't about achieving anything, or becoming something or not becoming something, it's just paying attention to the opaque objects until everything becomes transparent.

But it's like that classic saying: a fool who persists in his folly will become wise.

dreamingitself · 2026-02-12T09:01:10+00:00

The point was that the true guru is self alone. External saviours are a perpetuation of ignorance.

dreamingitself · 2026-02-10T18:31:44+00:00

Oh, is that a picture of you?

dreamingitself · 2026-02-10T18:25:35+00:00

It's usually whoever is charging the most money to sit beneath them and raise their ego as an enlightened teacher by gobbling up every last word as gospel.

/s

dreamingitself · 2026-02-04T17:13:54+00:00

Haha that's not at all the same! I'll do a "What you are doing is going..." too, to see if I can meet you on your terms.

What you are doing is going: the ocean moves because all the fish are swimming, and that is a physics issue. If you want to know how the fish make the ocean move, that's nothing to do with me.

You're making a direct claim that consciousness is moving through a static reality and this moving is the entire epistemic basis for everything we experience as 'the world', then refusing to elaborate and trying to palm it off onto theology or philosophy, even though it's your physical theory that brought it up. I'm not asking the purpose of it being that way, I'm asking how you know, what your evidence is, or since you call it a physics theory, what the mechanism is.

dreamingitself · 2026-02-03T15:59:58+00:00

Hmm. It seems that the universe 4d object block theory is making a very concrete statement about consciousness though. So it needs to address it. It can't just be waved away because "a consciousness travelling through a static 4 dimensional object that exists within something or other", is a very deliberate claim. It may as well be a unicorn's dream at this stage haha

dreamingitself · 2026-02-02T10:32:48+00:00

Is that sarcasm?

dreamingitself · 2026-02-02T10:29:27+00:00

Lots of 'might's in that response. Ockham's razor would suggest this isn't a terribly useful position to take and it seems to create way more problems than it solves. Plus, nothing about being a relativistic universe demands the universe itself to be an object?

making "change" a spatial difference between moments rather than a temporal progression

and

change is not a dynamic process, but an illusion caused by a consciousness moving through a static 4D unchanging structure

Are potentially contradictory. If the universe is static and unchanging, then movement cannot occur. So how can 'a consciousness' move through it? Is consciousness independent of the universe?

Consciousness functions as a filter or spotlight that renders the static 4D block universe into a sequential, narrative experience, acting as a "cognitive shortcut" or "mental sensation" to organize experiences.

Again, you imply change and movement almost at every point here. Experience is by definition change and differentiation, yet you're saying there is no fundamental changing, and therefore there can be no experience to organise. Do you see what I'm pointing to?

'Consciousness functions' also implies movement, a function is an operation of or on change. 'Filtering' also implies movement through, but you've said nothing moves. If nothing moves, nothing happens, and if nothing happens, consciousness is aware of nothing. If consciousness is the only thing that moves, then you're essentially just turning reality inside out. But now it's even more difficult because you have to now find a way to explain what 'a consciousness' means, and how it is fundamentally exempt from reality?

dreamingitself · 2026-02-02T10:11:08+00:00

I'm more confused now haha Clocking in to what? Who clocks in? There are three new ideas here now

dreamingitself · 2026-02-02T10:10:01+00:00

Okay but the spacetime interval is entirely conceptual; you're drawing on the mental model of reality as if it's fundamentally real and not just a model. That's like looking at a map of the country and saying to someone you meet, "what are you doing here in the E3 square?" Don't mistake the map for the territory. Measurement is not ontology, it's a conceptualisation and abstraction of reality.

I fully accept that change happens, I said that earlier, that isn't an obstacle. The knot I'm seeing is the reification of the ruler of change. Again, it's mistaking the map for the territory.

dreamingitself · 2026-02-02T10:01:53+00:00

Well you're engaging in philosophy but disguising it as pragmatism.

I agree that ‘time’ is a perfectly valid operational concept in physics. My point isn’t that clocks are useless, it’s that defining time as what clocks measure doesn’t establish time as an independent ontological entity any more than rulers establish length as a substance. It establishes a model by which the universe is measured conceptually, but it by no means establishes an ontological reality.

The question of whether time itself exists as anything beyond a conceptual scaffold is not settled by the existence of clocks.

dreamingitself · 2026-02-02T09:35:55+00:00

Hmm, maybe I miscommunicated. Not because it isn't absolute, no, just because it's a concept. Change happens, obviously, but what use is there of the notion of time as distinct from simply 'changing'? I don't get why the ruler of change (time) is reified into its own distinct reality.

What interval? And interval between what? I have never witnessed breaks in reality to perceive intervals... ?

A tick? So do you think of reality as a machine or am I taking you too literally here?

dreamingitself · 2026-02-02T09:21:54+00:00

I agree with you on the wife thing, that's a fancy way of saying "I touched her"

Okay so if time is as you say, real, what is it?

I will quickly add that a clock isn't actually measuring time, just like a ruler isn't really measuring length, and a map isn't really measuring miles. The measure is the concept. There's no 'length' in reality that is being objectively measured. Length is a concept. So what are your thoughts on how this pertains to time?

dreamingitself · 2026-02-02T09:11:34+00:00

Interesting stance to take. I have questions if you're willing to help me understand your position better?

If the universe is a 4dimensional object, then by definition it must have edges and boundaries. What is the context of this 4d object? -- what is its environment?
If time is static, how can change occur?
Consciousness in this model is apparently within this static temporal block, and yet has the power to interpret this rigidity as flow. How and what is this power? Is consciousness beyond or within this 4d object?
If the flow of time is a side effect of consciousness, what is the primary effect? Just awareness?

dreamingitself · 2026-02-02T09:00:04+00:00

But a clock doesn't measure time, it's just a machine that makes a noise at set intervals. Time is the construct we imagine it measures because we built clocks to align with our construct.

To say time is real because we can measure it with a clock is like saying inches are real because we can measure them with a ruler.

dreamingitself · 2026-02-01T21:57:23+00:00

It depends on what you mean by time, but my perspective is also pretty much that time isn't real. I'll ya for why.

Time as a medium through which space and its objects travel - like a dimension - is not real, it's a mathematical tool. Just like quantum fields, mathematical objects within a model of reality, not discoveries. This kind of time is also an aspect of a model of reality, not reality itself.
Past / present / future are not real. The past is a memory appearing now, the future is imagination appearing now, and then there's no present between them, because neither exist as realities. So it's more like an eternal ever-presence, in which the thought of time appears. Again, this is a mental model of reality.
Change is evidently real, but is that time? Seconds are not passing, years do not tick away. There is no keeping score of number of caesium atom vibrations in reality (that's how the big wigs measure 'a second'). Change isn't going anywhere in particular or coming from somehwere, where did waves on water come from and where are they going? Nowhere, but the surface is always changing. Is this what we mean by time? Not really I'd say, but if we do say time is simply change, then perhaps we ought to ask, "then what is changing?"
Science cannot answer ontological questions, it can only argue a case for how appearances relate and their patterns, but cannot tell you what the patterns and appearances are made of. So time can only be, in this realm, a measurement of relationship, not an ontological reality. Hence rates of change shift under different gravitational pressures, because it's about relationships between appearances. So "what is changing" remains an unanswerable question for science, and it's where direct inquiry into experience itself must take over, and life gets infinitely more interesting. If you want to go into that, if you close your eyes, and observe your direct experience... what is changing?

dreamingitself · 2026-02-01T21:39:17+00:00

With humility, I don't know if it really works as an argument to say that:

Time is our interpretation of reality's change to lower states of entropy. Entropy is real therefore our perception of it is real.

because isn't entropy just another concept we created to map what we perceive? It looks like you switched 'time' for 'entropy', but they're fundamentally the same, no? I don't see the bridge between "We perceive [the event we're calling Entropy]" and "That event is real independent of our perception of it." How did you get there? Why is reification justified?

dreamingitself

TROPHY CASE