The changeability of our being-

http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Therapy/jiddukrishnamurti_habits.htm
I can understand if this was some funny medival discussion, but with todays eyes it's just a bunch of unscientific talkative nonsens. He talks of the mind, well in neuroscience he would be laughing stock with this medival approach, then he talks of habbits, breaking habbits ..etc, but doesn't really describe why a habbit is caused psycologically, nor describe what happens in the bio-chemical process inside us.

Even disregarding aforementioned flaws, I can't find any use in the rest of this brain diariah ..but I guess it was a good mental orgasm for you.

Your witty comments aside, the aim of what Krishnamurti is trying to do is cultivate a particular kind of thinking, which includes an awareness of the typical ways in which people think. He’s not just trying to describe a psychological process, he's trying to encourage people to think about the way in which they think, by promoting awareness.

It’s not hard to understand why people become enmeshed in habits of thinking and living. people do not reflect on their own thought processes, and are not critical of the way they live, and so they end up being caught in habits. habits are easier to carry out, they are familiar to us, and through habits things become predictable, and we feel less uncertain thereby.

Thinking is an activity, and if we repeat particular thought processes over and over, and do not reflect on the process itself, then the process becomes ingrained into us. when we experience something, a memory is created of that moment, and similar experiences can call up that memory, and make us feel a particular way, but its not the current experience which is causing you to feel that way, but the memory of a past experience which the current one brought up, but we attribute the current experience to be causing us to feel a particular way.

By cultivating an awareness of this process, we can begin to see that our feelings in a particular moment may not be a direct response to that moment, but may be coming from a memory which the moment has brought up in our thinking.

the claim is that people are not aware of thought as an activity, which involves memory, interpretation, feeling etc. instead people are blind to the process of thought, and how it impacts upon the way they behave, and how they feel.

Yes, indeed he made some habbit observation, but imo it's not really useable, it's like a child dropping eggs on the floor and yelling "GRAVITY!!" ..eeeh ..yearh?

Its nothing like that, at all.

Then tell me, of what great use does he want us to use his observation for?

But tell me, how are you going to cultivate that type of awareness? Usually so-called spiritual teachers used to recommend a certain set of methods, practices aimed at "getting you there". But Krishnaji denies all of them...

I think he wants people to try and use his observations in order to attain the freedom he claims it will provide. We all continuously have thoughts, which inform our behaviour, and what K is trying to say, is that we are in some way not properly aware of the thoughts that are behind all the ways in which we behave and respond to the world.

Dr. Frankl, a holocaust survivor and logo-therapist, had some similar ideas. He talked of the "space" between a stimulus and a response, and within that space, we can find our freedom, and be able to grow as a consequence.

Should I point out the obvious - that if you didn't understand it, then your interpretation of it is probably flawed?

The NAACP statement by the way, made perfect sense to me. Strangely, the way I read it, it was getting at a completely different concept than the way other people here have read it.

How do we generally percieve consciousness moving through time?
We picture ourselves moving forward by experiencing one moment after the other in a continuous string, and this is a practical and sensible way to think of our perception.
But when we include self awareness, every conscious moment can only percieve the previous conscious moment. The only way to percieve one's own consciousness directly is through meditation or perfect action. By perfect action I mean moments in which you were so focused on the task you were performing that you percieved no boundaries between your acting self and the task itself, instead percieving existence or being as a singular process.
And since we humans are capable of perfect action with just about anything we do, I tend to think that our being, or more specifically how we percieve ourselves to be, is by no means a constant in any other way than its enduring presence.