And each fragment or I/me presents itself as thinking, speaking / representing the whole mind / brain. (Me)
But it does so as an observer separate from the quality it is observing.
Sorry not to get back to you Crina - it’s been a busy couple of days for me and I haven’t had time to read people’s comments. I’ll reply when I have a bit of leisure again.
Yes. Or to put it differently, there is only ‘what is’. K constantly talked about the importance of remaining with ‘what is’, seeing ‘what is’, without the mind splitting off into judgements and opinions about ‘what is’. - That only by meeting ‘what is’ completely (through attention) can the mind dissolve and go beyond the ‘what is’.
What does “the what is” mean in this context?
Conflict, envy, selfishness, suffering, etc.
I could also have said the state of the world, because society is the externalisation of the inner movement of our own psyches.
Or you could have said “psychological conditioning”, or something similar.
I had to ask the question because for a long time I was never clear as to whether “what is” is what actually is or the brain’s reaction to what actually is.
What is ‘what is’? I feel question is more about the observation itself. If observation is pure, then it can see what is. Perhaps it may help if there is inquiry into pure observation rather than about what is observed.
Pure observation is not thought. But I know this answer will not satisfy the discussion here. I am not talking about the observed, whether the observed is a tree, feeling or thought but the observation itself. The observation itself is not thought
Envy seen as “what is”.
In total awareness, envy is seen as one, as “the state of envy”, as “there is only envy”.
In partial awareness, the envy is analyzed, and the state of envy is split in 2: envy as the idea of envy, and envy as the owner of the idea of envy (the me, which we think is not envy !!)
Thought can’t see envy as one state….
Thought can’t stand alone, it needs another thought (fragment) in order to exist in time, to move in time (this moving in time is the thinking we know, from thought to thought, for fragment to fragment ).
1 Like
For the conditioned brain, “pure observation” is a concept, an ideal.
A brain that thinks it is free of psychological conditioning cannot help a brain that is aware of its psychological conditioning.
Hello Adeen. I think anyone who is familiar with K’s teachings would agree with this. I understand that K said that it is thought which prevents “pure observation” by acting as a filter or a screen. If we look at a tree, we don’t actually see the tree but an image created by our past knowledge and experience of trees. Thought distorts our observations and makes them personal by activating a conditioned response. Is this not so?
1 Like