Depends what is meant by ‘access.’ Through science we can discover/reveal the fundamental laws that govern material reality. Would you consider that accessing the order?
Scientific laws - so-called - are provisional consensus based approximations of best current theory. Best current theory being, the most fitting conceptual hypothesis which fits with our current general scientific knowledge of the world.
So scientific knowledge is always limited and being added to, modified, in line with new discoveries (and the theories which best contextualise them).
So science is conceptual knowledge of the world. And concepts are not the actuality to which they may or may not be pointing.
So when we talk about
are we only speaking about access at the level of theory, intellect, current best theory (based on consensus based approximations)?
Or is there a possibility or interest in accessing the hidden order of the world from within consciousness itself - from within the world directly, which is our mind and heart?
Agreed about the limitations of scientific ‘laws’ in revealing the nature of reality. (Though I have been leaning towards the notion that generative principles/patterns may be fundamental.)
Interest for sure. Possibility? I don’t know. When we relax into wakeful silence, is that order?
Relaxed quietness is one thing.
Absolute silence of the mind - which implies the ending of thought and psychological time, the complete ending of the self - is another.
Relaxed quietness I have experienced, I can speak of it with some confidence. Absolute silence of mind I have experienced either rarely/fleetingly or not at all, all I can really do is speculate or extrapolate from my experiences, neither of which is very trustworthy.
Do we need to hedge this? I think we can be 100% certain that neither of us has experienced absolute silence of the mind, otherwise we wouldn’t be here saying the things we say.
Meditation is the ending of all the content of one’s consciousness…
The freeing of the mind of all its content, then only there is that absolute silence, not brought about by will, by desire, by thought - then only it is possible for something, that which has not been put together by thought, can come into being.
(Talk 6, Ojai, 1979)
There may be a relationship between attention and silence.
Silence is the nothingness of thought. Silence has no content of thought.
Attention is to be aware, attentive, without the background of thought, and without a centre created by thought.
So there is a logical link between absolute attention and true silence of the mind.
Both Krishnamurti and Buddhists seem to have recognised this, which is why they gave such importance to being aware, attentive, etc.
Incidentally, if you are serious about wanting to discover the ‘hidden order’ of the universe, why do you not take seriously the possibility that it can be found through meditation, through absolute silence of the mind?
Both in Buddhism and with Krishnamurti there is a feeling that the order of the universe (what Krishnamurti called universal order, and Buddhists call Dharmadhatu/Dharmakaya/Dharma) is related to a mind that has had a liberating insight, a mind that has the quality of absolute silence.
Thanks for this really interesting quote James (I’ll watch the video tomorrow). The quote made me think of therapy - an outside agent helps bring attention to a problem with the hope of understanding and solution. K points out that if we give great attention to our problems they can be fully revealed, understood and they then pass away. Fascinating stuff!
1 Like
That sounds right.
Incidentally, if you are serious about wanting to discover the ‘hidden order’ of the universe, why do you not take seriously the possibility that it can be found through meditation, through absolute silence of the mind?
I do, but I’ve meditated quite a bit over the years and have yet to see any hidden order.
I think Schopenhauer said somewhere that we take the limits of our own minds, our own experiences, to be the limits of the world. One has to remember that true attention and true silence are synonymous with a mind that is empty, nothing (length: 1 min, 17 secs):
Out of attention and silence there may be a perception of supreme order (length: 1 min, 29 secs):
But that silence needs to be absolute (length: under 1 min):
That would make sense, since ‘the world’ is for must of us ‘our (perceived-thought-felt) world.’ Our work is largely to recognize and accept that we are often nontrivially wrong!
Thanks for the links, I’ll watch them now.
Yes. There is a phrase often used in humanistic psychology: “Unconditional positive regard” (in which context the word “positive” means a warm, nonjudgmental acceptance of a person’s problems.
In the case of attention the only difference is that there is no outside agency, no external therapist. Attention itself is both the therapy and the therapist.
In the video (from which the quote you mention is taken) I think Krishnamurti articulates this warm, unconditional, nonjudgmental regard (of attention) to a problem very well.
There has been some discussion on another thread (‘A safe place’) about awareness, whether it can be practised, what does it involve, etc. So, for those who are interested, I thought I would share a video and transcript of 1 answer (to a question from a Question and Answer meeting) on the topic, where Krishnamurti breaks down the difference between awareness, concentration, and attention.
I have also shared short excepts of Krishnamurti’s answer from two other questions which are relevant here (they do not appear in the present video, but can be found in the longer video of this Question and Answer meeting).
1st Question: The act of attention for most of us is difficult to maintain. Only a small part of one is willing, interested seriously. What can one do to nourish this attention?
Answer: I wonder if we can go into the question together: what do we mean by attention? What is the difference between awareness, concentration, and attention? Could we go into that together? To be aware; as one is sitting under these beautiful trees on a lovely morning, nice and cool, not too hot, one is aware of that woodpecker pecking away, one is aware of the green lawn, the beautiful trees and sunlight, the spotted light, and if you are looking from that direction you are aware of those mountains. How does one look at them? How do you look at this marvellous sight? The beauty of this place. What does it mean to you? Do you observe it, aware of it without any choice, without any desire, urge, just to observe the extraordinary beauty of the land. And when you observe so easily, aware of all this - the light and the shade, the branches, the darkness of the trunks and the light on the leaf, and the extension of this marvellous earth - how does one react to all that? What is the feeling behind that awareness? Is it that beauty of that land and the hills and the shadows, is it related to our life, is it part of our life, or it is there to be observed - if you are a poet, you write about it, if you are an artist you paint it, or if you are good at conversation or description you put it into words. But this beauty, this awareness of this, what is its relationship to one’s life? That’s part of awareness, the awareness of the external and the awareness of one’s own reactions to the external, and to be aware of the movement of this. As you are sitting there, are you aware of the colours of the shirts or robes or whatever the ladies wear, are you aware of all that?
Or when we are aware is there always a choice? ‘I prefer this land to another land’, ‘I prefer this valley to other valleys’, so there is always memory and choice operating. And can one be aware without any choice at all, just to be aware of the extraordinary sense of the blue sky, the blue sky through the leaves, and just move with it all. And is one aware of one’s reactions, and when one is aware of one’s reactions is there a preference? One more desirable than the other, one is more urgent than the other, one is more continuous, habitual, and so on; and so from the outer move to the inner - you understand what I am saying? - so that there is no division between the outer and the inner; it’s like a tide going out and coming in. That’s an awareness of this world outside of us and an awareness of the world deep inside of us, conscious as well as the unconscious. When one is really deeply conscious or aware, there is no remnant or hidden unconscious movement. I don’t know if you have gone through all this, if you have done it, not merely listened do a lot of words. So awareness is this movement of the outer and the inner and discover for oneself whether there is division between the outer and the inner. Of course there is a division between the tree and myself - I am not the tree, I hope. But in observing that thing which we call ‘tree’, to discover our reactions to it, how we react to beauty, to ugliness, to brutality, to violence, to competition and quietness and so on.
And what do we mean by concentration? Because they are all related: awareness, concentration, and attention. What is concentration? To concentrate upon a page, upon a picture, to concentrate all one’s energy on a particular point. In that concentration is there not the effort to concentrate? Whereas - effort to concentrate, that is, you are trying to read a particular page and out of the window you see a marvellous light on a flower and your thought wanders off to that, but then you try then to pull that thought back and concentrate on something. So there is this constant struggle to focus one’s energy, visual and so on, so there is a resistance, a struggle, and all the time trying to focus on a particular point. Are we meeting? This is right, isn’t it, when we talk about attention, about concentration.
The questioner asks, attention happens occasionally and how is one to nourish that attention so that it is continuous, not haphazard? So we are asking: what is attention, to attend? Are you interested in the question? To attend. To attend to that woodpecker. Did you listen to that woodpecker? There it is!
In concentration there is always the one who tries to concentrate, and in that concentration there is an effort and control. So there is a controller and a controlled in concentration. I hope you see this for yourself. There is the controller who is trying to focus his thought on a particular subject, but thought is all the time moving, wandering around, and so he tries to control it and in that control there is a form of resistance. There is a division between the controller and the controlled. And so there is an effort, a sense of division. Where there is division there must be conflict between the controller and the controlled. That is generally what we call concentration. Now is there in attention this division? You follow? The controller trying to attend and therefore there is a division between the thought that says, I must attend, I must learn how to sustain attention or nourish it. I hope you are following all this. So is there in attention a centre from which you attend, or when you listen to that woodpecker, you are listening.
So is there in attention an entity who is attending or there is only attention? Which means attending with your listening, perception, seeing and giving all your energy to attend to something. Are you listening attentively now? Listening to the speaker, what he is saying about attention. Are you actually listening? And when you really listen, there is no centre as the ‘me’ who is listening. You are following this? Is this right? Whereas there is always a centre in concentration. We are saying attention has no centre and therefore extensive. And it cannot be nourished - you attend if you are listening, if there is an intensity, you can’t - it is attending. Is this fairly clear? May we go?
So, really, awareness without choice, a choiceless awareness, and concentration, and this sense of extensive, vast attention. Attention has no periphery, whereas concentration has - it is limited.
2nd Question: What is an action and state of being that is completely pure?
Answer: Is there an action - please, enquire with me, don’t accept, be a little sceptical about this - is there an action - rationally sceptical - is there an action which is not born of psychological memory? …
There is an action that is not born out of past remembrances or future hopes and ideals. It is being totally aware of ‘what is’, and having an insight into ‘what is’ is the ending of ‘what is’. I wonder if you see that?
4th Question: Why do we not change?
Answer: What will change us is only our own attention, our own awareness of the confusion in which we live, and watching that, remaining with that completely, not trying to change it, not trying to do something about it. You understand this? …
[When] you observe ‘what is’ completely freely… when you observe so totally with complete attention, that which ‘is’ has completely ended. So it must be one’s own perception of one’s misery, confusion, and [to] live with it wholly, not trying to act upon it.
(Question & answer meeting 2, Ojai, 1982)
Thanks for posting this James. I thought it was a very good question and one which K answers very clearly.
K seems to be answering from the perspective of someone who has discovered all this himself. As a consequence, he eems to effortlessly maintain a high level of attention and awareness in his everyday life. The “choicelessness” comes across strongly in his answer. How do you see this?
Yes. There is a sense of complete inclusiveness in his answer. In contrast to those who say that where there is awareness there are no reactions of thought or feeling, Krishnamurti’s approach here is that nothing is excluded from the field of awareness. If there are reactions and choices of thought, one can be aware of them (which is to be choiceless). And if there is no choice one can become aware of one’s feeling response to being aware of the trees and sunlight and shadows of the environment. Awareness is both of the inner and the outer, a seamless movement between them so that the two are not divided. It is just natural awareness - not something exclusive or excluding.
The difference with attention seems to be that attention is a more intense state in which the sense of a centre observing, of being aware, is not present; so there is only a state of borderless, limitless attention.
Later on in the question and answer meeting (as I mentioned) Krishnamurti suggests that any content of consciousness (i.e. of ‘what is’) that is brought within the purview of this intense state of attention can be (or is) dissolved through insight.
So Krishnamurti seems to be describing a natural movement from awareness, awareness of the inner and the outer, awareness of reactions and choices, awareness without choice - to attention without a centre or border, attention to ‘what is’, and then an insight which dissolves ‘what is’. It is all one single movement.
1 Like
Obviously most of us do not remain in or with this movement all the way through from its origins in simple awareness to dissolving insight. But the movement seems to be clear enough.
Is it possible to effectively understand that thought is limited without awareness. Awareness in the sense that K used it above. That is, can thought, as we normally use it, understand itself or does there need to be some form of heightened awareness present for thought to not disarm its view of itself?
I have attempted (just now) to answer this question over on the ‘Safe place’ thread.