So let it fade. But as K says the moment you are aware that it is fading/faded means again you are aware.
And that’s how it goes.
Once we get a hang of this, awareness becomes deeper and more abiding .
It’s like you are falling asleep. Can’t avoid that. But the moment you realise that you are falling asleep means you are awake again.
1 Like
You remind me Drax that this awareness isn’t mine.
2 Likes
How is awareness not yours? It’s a function of the brain and you are a brain, so how is it not yours? Two brains may be aware of the same environment, but not of the same body.
No, nobody, I don’t think so.
You could say we are aware all the time, except when unconscious, and even then a low-level maintenance awareness might be present.
But we are relatively rarely choicelessly aware. Instead we are drawn to X in our field of awareness and put off by Y. We distinguish, separate, evaluate. We are aware of the parts of the field we choose to be aware of, not of the whole field.
What does it mean, to be aware of the whole field? We are not God, cannot see every particle in the field. So it must be a qualitative, not quantitative thing?
Yes, and we can distort or deny parts of the field we choose to be aware of. But awareness is choiceless before the conditioned mind processes it for its purposes.
Right, before the hijacking takes place.
‘Yours’ is a possessive pronoun. Why do you say “I am a brain?” We are considering here K.'s statement that “you / I are nothing”. If that is so, how can nothing ‘have’, ‘own’, something, especially something as intangible, as ‘awareness’?
1 Like
Yes. In total awareness it does seem that distinction between observer(you) and the observed(surrounding) ceases. There is only awareness not yours or mine.
In the presence of K, people used to feel heightened sense of awareness probably for the same reason.
What do you think he meant? He couldn’t have meant literally nothing because everybody is somebody and something, how ever insignificant or delusional.
Might he be referring to the process of identification? This has always puzzled me. How the sense of me as a separate integral entity comes into being from the brain’s very real stored data. Intellectually we can appreciate that the “I” is inferred - that is, it is indeed ‘nothing’, a projected reality - but emotionally it feels very real and substantive.
It does. So it is a leap to even consider, to even question its solidity. But if this sense of ‘me’ is an illusion created by brain and thought, it can only be ‘insight’ that could see the possibility that it is an illusion. How do you see the connection with “identification”?
Also could the ‘I’ process in each of us simply be an abstraction of thought, experience, a kind of accumulation that calls itself ‘I’? That the sense of being separate, divided, alone, derives from this accumulation? That my accumulation (or ‘self’) is different than any other. There is a constant struggle to maintain it (self-esteem) hence the inevitable conflict with others. Because there is the inevitable ‘insecurity’…K. saying things like “you don’t exist” and “you are nothing (not a thing)” seem to point away from there.
Yes, this must be what K meant when he said we are “nothing”, since every actual thing is literally something.
I seem to be who I think I am, but in fact, I am nothing more or less than I actually am at this moment.
The issue is that experientially we feel we have thoughts rather than we are thoughts, isn’t it? That we exist. That ‘we’ are something, not a mirage. There is no sense of being ‘identical’ to thoughts at all. The two are felt to be wholly independent — physically speaking. People like Krishnamurti and others (including some modern-day neuroscientists too, if I am not mistaken ) suggest that the I-self does not exist per se, which has given us reason for pause. But it is only that, pause.
The human brain seems to have evolved to take image-making to miraculous levels (including the generation of a self-image). This has served us well collectively as a species - albeit at the expense of individual security. I personally don’t know anything about this ‘insight’ that K speaks of, of some type of overarching perception that differs from our ordinary mode of perceiving that K attributes to conditioning. We can’t rule out the possibility that it is available to the common person, as there seems to be several bonafide examples of “enlightened” beings in human history. What we do know is that it is not a matter of will, as that would be more image-making.
Krishnamurti tends to use the words insight, self-knowledge, etc to refer to a state of mind wherein one realizes that fundamental questions are indeed unanswerable (all knowledge is limited) and yet does not walk away.
It is not ‘natural’ to even approach such a deep state of not-knowing, much less remain with it, which is why most of us don’t even come close, I imagine. We tend to concoct a resolution, no matter how lacking, even at the cost of self-deception. Which is fine, I guess, as long as there is insight into the fact that is the case, so that one can flush the cache and start afresh.
1 Like
Again that’s not surprising if we actually are just what he called us, “a bundle of memory and experience “
1 Like
Yes and it is the reactive nature of the emotions that seems to keep the illusion intact and dangerous. One conditioned ‘bundle’ says something and this other conditioned bundle reacts, sometimes violently. The ‘role’ of ‘Intelligence’ here (if it’s present) is as a reminder of what is going on. If it is remembered that ‘I’ am not ‘real’, and that ‘you’ are not real either, then the reactions will not have the emotional impact or even possibly there will be no reaction? Because that is what passes for most relationship, isn’t it, positive and negative reactions based on the conditioning of the parties in contact? This is theoretical unless Intelligence is awake in the moment.
Added:
Emile:
The issue is that experientially we feel we have thoughts rather than we are thoughts, isn’t it? That we exist. That ‘we’ are something, not a mirage.
Dan
Just one more insight into this. 
This sensation or feeling, that of ‘me-ness’ is ‘connected’ to the very movement of thought. When thought is active (which is usually) this feeling of ‘me-ness’ arises. (There is the ‘feeling’ but no actual ‘me’! ) And interestingly this feeling of ‘me-ness’ is more or less (but mostly more) universal. Along with the thinking process in each brain, this sensation of ‘I’ or ‘me’ accompanies it. The sensation is the same for each of us, it is only the thoughts that differ according to ones experiences , knowledge, education, etc. Does this make sense?
Say I am sitting passively, like in meditation, and I am contemplative, listening, watching, observing, but not with any focus, not attaching any thoughts to anything? The senses, seeing, hearing, feeling, are working freely, moving along with a whole awareness. This movement is in flux, and the observer is quiet, not naming things, not thinking, has no memories. There are the noises in the street, the noises of machinery, the sounds of birds, maybe the wind, maybe there is an ache, a discomfort, all that, which are heard and felt in a whole flow of attentiveness, and not parts of a struggle to do something, or be something. This is being not a part of any effort, and not with any motive. It is integrated with the whole sense of an effortless being in the world at large.
What do we say is this experience, observing the world effortlessly? There are no particular things or particular experiences at hand. It is not a directed awareness, not focusing on anything, not selectively using thought in any way. The observing is not a centered observing; not an experience from a position in relation to other positions. As a matter of communication, what do we call this?
I don’t know what to call it nor how to present it for consideration, and as you can see I can only work through thinking about it, and reporting it. But then I read some other reports and I see the difficulty is in the use of words. The difficulty expressing and understanding all this is in the nature of thought.
Where there is clarity/understanding it is easier to find the right words to communicate. Also the listener finds it easier to relate.
And communication can be much more than verbal.
I call it self-deception if you think it is not “centered observing” and “not in relation to other positions”. Doing something more passive than usual is not a radical departure from one’s ordinary behavior. It’s still self-centered and it is compared with other self-centered activities.
It’s a good exercise and everyone should do it, but beware of believing that it’s anything more than an experiment or a routine.
This is just argumentative. You didn’t consider my question, and actually look into something which is or is not what it is. I see mostly the general approach is argumentative, and any discussion is a complete waste of time and energy.
Your question is, “What do you call this?”, and I gave you my answer. The argument is yours.