Who watches the watchmen?

Look, if you’ve actually managed to climb the ladder enough to become a supervisor, then you’ve basically set yourself up for the moment where you end up babysitting the very people who used to be your peers.

Sure. Care to elaborate?

Look, ladies, of course it's possible, because those were just declarative statements in the first post.

What we’re really looking at here is Jiddu Krishnamurti’s whole observation about how trying to micromanage yourself—your thoughts, your moods, all that stuff—isn't actually the way to go; instead, you're supposed to just be this impartial observer. See, when you start trying to police your own brain, you run straight into that old dilemma: "Who watches the watchmen". When he was reading sections of his books, he’d toss that question out at his audience, and since they couldn't wrap their heads around an answer, they just swallowed his ideas whole as if they were absolute gospel. Instead of nudging people toward their own deep dives and independent thinking, he basically pushes his own perspectives as these untouchable truths.

Since everyone knows there isn't just one single road to reaching a destination, I’m going to take a crack at answering his question myself, and I'm honestly curious if anyone else has some different takes on it so maybe we can collectively stumble upon some alternative answers.

With some forms of spiritual growth, for instance, we arrive at a certain kind of discipline simultaneously. It becomes spontaneous. But at every peak, there are extreme trials. To cross that threshold, one must recognize the trap. Changing what has been learned—that is the trial for the mind.
I don't quite grasp what you're asking exactly, but... well, it's good that we're discussing this.
Control isn't inherently positive or negative. Sometimes it is welcome; other times, the very pursuit of control is what leads to despair.
But if we find ourselves in despair, does that not mean that too is a lesson?
The learning never stops.

Here is an everyday dilemma. There are situations where a bad state of being is merely passing through. Naturally, the impulse is to ask "why?"—but that leads nowhere. Those learned patterns—is it better to sleep it off, to ignore it? Or on the other hand—is it better to stay productive, to... blah blah, just to pass the time until things improve?
I simply let go. And then, perhaps in those moments, I realize something, or I simply hit rock bottom and say goodbye. Occasionally, creativity strikes, and that turns out to be far more productive for me than those other two options.

Nothing is "bad," I think that’s the only conclusion.
There are no questions, though I feel them even without asking...
The only thing that matters isn't what kind of action you choose, but rather the awareness that all of it is correct. My own excess of striving is what becomes foolish during those foolish moments.

To be able to let things flow. So yes, in my view, not controlling it is the ultimate form of control.
In that sense, I agree with K., assuming I understood correctly, though I haven't read him.
I only remember his words very clearly, recorded here on the forum, regarding the non-existence of time.
Sometimes the words we read are merely someone else's words; sometimes they are an experience you share with the speaker.
It isn't an easy task, because the harshest critics are usually those who fail to understand, and there are many of them... truth is a whole, it doesn't fit into words; you cannot transmit realization.
Absolute truth? I don't know. Perhaps you experienced him as more arrogant than he actually is.
I suppose if one is writing a book, it follows naturally that various "truths" can be derived from it. Every work is a whole, carrying its own message or messages. I don't see how it could be any different. And just as you have done yourself, from every work, further questions can be drawn, and that is wonderful. That is how new works are born. 😍

Peter Phillips32 said:Look, ladies, of course it's possible, because those were just declarative statements in the first post.

What we’re really looking at here is Jiddu Krishnamurti’s whole observation about how trying to micromanage yourself—your thoughts, your moods, all that stuff—isn't actually the way to go; instead, you're supposed to just be this impartial observer. See, when you start trying to police your own brain, you run straight into that old dilemma: "Who watches the watchmen". When he was reading sections of his books, he’d toss that question out at his audience, and since they couldn't wrap their heads around an answer, they just swallowed his ideas whole as if they were absolute gospel. Instead of nudging people toward their own deep dives and independent thinking, he basically pushes his own perspectives as these untouchable truths.

Since everyone knows there isn't just one single road to reaching a destination, I’m going to take a crack at answering his question myself, and I'm honestly curious if anyone else has some different takes on it so maybe we can collectively stumble upon some alternative answers.

Honestly, I think Krishnamurti is being a bit superficial here; being a truly "impartial observer" is a total impossibility. Think about it: if you are the observer, you can't be impartial. But if you are actually impartial, then you aren't really observing anything!

For an observer to function, they have to maintain awareness of both themselves and the phenomenon they are watching. But true self-awareness requires stepping outside of the EGO. And since the EGO is built entirely on the act of JUDGING, being impartial is fundamentally impossible.

In reality, being "impartial" would just mean being UNCONSCIOUS OF ONESELF. When you factor in the nature of the EGO, any talk about achieving IMPARTIALITY just doesn't hold water.

A little clarification here:

TRUE impartiality would essentially mean having zero self-awareness. If you're looking at things strictly from the perspective of pure existence, then trying to claim actual objectivity is just impossible. I mean, how could there be any kind of non-judgmental stance within your own being if the "I" isn't even present to experience it?

What do you think the word "impartial" actually means?
The observer observes (they're aware), they don't judge, so they stay impartial.
But once the observer takes a side, they lose that neutrality.
And at that point, they aren't really an observer anymore—they've just become a fan.😍

casualmaker13 said:What do you think the word "impartial" actually means?
The observer observes (they're aware), they don't judge, so they stay impartial.
But once the observer takes a side, they lose that neutrality.
And at that point, they aren't really an observer anymore—they've just become a fan.😍

Here’s the thing: consciousness can’t actually be NEUTRAL, because if it isn't, it isn't really consciousness at all!
I mean, what kind of CONSCIOUSNESS exists without an "I"?
The "I" is inherently BIASED, because that very bias is exactly what constitutes the "I."
Even if you try to go out of your way to pick a side, it doesn't change the underlying BIAS—it's been there all along, running in the background.

You guys keep crying out for more "consciousness," but don't you realize you're actually just asking for more sweat and blood? You're asking for more judgment, more condemnation, and more heartache and struggle in your own lives!

Anyway, has anyone seen shamantrixx lately? Where did they disappear to?

placidharbor7 said:Here’s the thing: consciousness can’t actually be NEUTRAL, because if it isn't, it isn't really consciousness at all!
I mean, what kind of CONSCIOUSNESS exists without an "I"?
The "I" is inherently BIASED, because that very bias is exactly what constitutes the "I."
Even if you try to go out of your way to pick a side, it doesn't change the underlying BIAS—it's been there all along, running in the background.

You guys keep crying out for more "consciousness," but don't you realize you're actually just asking for more sweat and blood? You're asking for more judgment, more condemnation, and more heartache and struggle in your own lives!

Anyway, has anyone seen shamantrixx lately? Where did they disappear to?

I don't get why having more awareness is supposed to be a bad thing? Isn't being aware just having better knowledge about stuff you used to be clueless about?

Peter Phillips32 said:I don't get why having more awareness is supposed to be a bad thing? Isn't being aware just having better knowledge about stuff you used to be clueless about?

placidharbor7 was actually saying "for more awareness," not "with higher consciousness."

It’s really more about having the humility to just let go and surrender to the flow of life. In those massive corporate networks, everything is already programmed.

Jacob Jackson50 said:It’s really more about having the humility to just let go and surrender to the flow of life. In those massive corporate networks, everything is already programmed.

And then there's this whole idea of "consciously surrendering to life."

Who monitors the monitor???

A certain film producer once tossed out this line regarding God:

God is God because He possesses a camera that keeps watch over Him twenty-four hours a day.

Let us attempt... hmmm... welllll... how shall I put this... you know... perhaps we could try to shut down that camera just a little bit?

Let us be serious and brief.

God is God because He is complete within Himself; He is omnipotent, yet desires nothing, possessing infinite abundances of which six are most fundamental.

1: No one is as wealthy as He is,
2. No one is as powerful as He is,
3: No one is as glorious as He is,
4. No one is as beautiful as He is,
5: No one is as knowledgeable as He is,
6: No one is as detached from everything as He is.

Or, simply stated, no one is as devoid of desire and greed as He is. He manifests these six attributes to the highest degree, and no one can rival Him in any single one. Of all these abundances, the most difficult to achieve is detachment.

Just consider how much we all crave wealth, for instance. Even if someone does not crave riches but instead pursues knowledge to earn an academic degree, it remains incredibly difficult for them to manifest that sixth abundance: detachment. For no matter how much one trains their ego (if they have trained it at all), they still yearn to stand out through those academic titles.

If you pay a man a meager wage while he works diligently, he will somehow scrape by and keep working. But if you strip away his—rightfully earned—recognition, he will eventually explode at you, and true hell will be unleashed.

Therefore, gentlemen, how could anyone possibly hope to control God, when He is so powerful, so unspeakably self-sufficient, so detached, and so void of desire? He has no need of our service. Everything with which we serve Him ultimately benefits us. There is simply no question of any kind of control, especially when one considers that sixth attribute.

placidharbor7 said:placidharbor7 was actually saying "for more awareness," not "with higher consciousness."

Look, let's break this down. Why on earth would having more awareness be a bad thing? Isn't being more aware just giving you a better grip on reality?
And seriously, why are you talking about yourself in the third person? Plus, why the one-sentence answers? It’s getting weird.

Who actually watches the watchers?
Maybe there's some super-controller or the owner of the universe...

But I guess once we all merge back into the ocean, there won't be any controllers left, or anyone left to control...

placidharbor7 said:placidharbor7 was actually saying "for more awareness," not "with higher consciousness."

Exactly.
Because just having "more awareness" doesn't lead to bloating your ego, whereas aiming for "higher consciousness" usually just ends up with someone acting like they're some kind of superior being.

probably nobody

just that most people tend to miss it

ironsailor10 said:Exactly.
Because just having "more awareness" doesn't lead to bloating your ego, whereas aiming for "higher consciousness" usually just ends up with someone acting like they're some kind of superior being.

But really, who on earth gets to claim they possess a "higher consciousness"?

Peter Phillips32 said:Look, let's break this down. Why on earth would having more awareness be a bad thing? Isn't being more aware just giving you a better grip on reality?
And seriously, why are you talking about yourself in the third person? Plus, why the one-sentence answers? It’s getting weird.

What people call "increased awareness" is really just an increase in thoughts, imagination, and endless overthinking. It’s just more tension, more stress, and more mental clutter...
Sure, you see more, but does that mean you see any *better*? At the end of the day, your life remains exactly the same as it was before you started overanalyzing everything.

Awareness is nothing more than simple observation without ever actually rising above the mundane, everyday grind.

placidharbor7 said:What people call "increased awareness" is really just an increase in thoughts, imagination, and endless overthinking. It’s just more tension, more stress, and more mental clutter...
Sure, you see more, but does that mean you see any *better*? At the end of the day, your life remains exactly the same as it was before you started overanalyzing everything.

Awareness is nothing more than simple observation without ever actually rising above the mundane, everyday grind.

I asked for more awareness—and now I can't even sit through TV, movies, American sitcoms, variety shows, or reality shows...😬