← Back to Kinfonet

Discover the Undiscovered

Discover the Undiscovered
We all know talking about something is not the same as doing it. But do we realise the talking is not doing it? The talking communicates within the limited range of thought, and all we do is work with thoughts. The talking is an activity, and I say am doing the thinking, but what is the content of the thinking? I might eventually get to do something, convey something, as the result of talking about it, but do we realise there is a habit of thinking everything is a result, from the self center. This is an age old habit. This result is what we call the thinker, who believes there is originality in their thoughts, which they have produced creatively. The content is language, ideas, beliefs, found throughout the population. The comments are often sentimental, trivial, petty, mundane, pragmatic, or clever and complex, and repeating a perspective of a self center. We seem to have a habit of not actually thinking. This not-thinking is the casual way of talking. Can we see this clearly, see the content, and the not-thinking response to content, and think about it intelligently?
This is a self-observation, isn’t it? The thinker is not separate to the talking. It is not an analysis of what was said or written. It is not coming up with answers and theories. It is watching, listening, attentively, carefully, and getting the content completely for its whole quality, its whole nature. To hear or read, getting only selective words, ideas, information, verbally, is to be the separate self in division, lost to accumulating words and ideas, and organising them. Fully responsive, integrated with all the senses, there is a natural comprehension, and this is communicating together, not limited to thought.

1 Like

What is it that we should be doing? Seeing clearly? Is this something that can be achieved? Is this something that one “does”?

We’re not thinking properly about our habitual non-thought through thoughts? Is there useful, correct thinking and silly, useless mentation/chatter which is habitual thus cannot really be considered thinking?

Are you saying that we don’t know how to listen?

I might realise for a moment I have something on my mind. But do we realise, most of the time, there is something on the mind? The mind is occupied, busy, with thought. We can noticeably react to a noise, to a comment, or to a danger, but not notice the wholesale effect of the conditioned mind. There is the day to day affair, where we can function well enough, but we are asking, am I operating unawares, psychologically, with a conditioned mind?

Yes.

Our reactions are the wholesale effects of the conditioned mind.

I am not asking, do I know this, I am questioning, do we notice this, or not?

Usually only when there is disease. Disease from the conflict between me and what is.

When there is awareness, I notice nothing.

Hmm? I used the word notice, as in being aware, alert, and taking notice of the mind activity. I would say awareness is very much noticing it all. Not the word noticing in the way of saying I see this or that object. It is not the day to day mind. It is a mind without division. It functions mechanically. Doing a task, not emotional, not aggressive, not applying verbal skills, there are the mechanical functions, and there is watching, attention, of an undivided mind. Can we be aware there is the conditioned mind, or do we immediately shift to the undivided mind free of conditioning?? So, it is noticing nothing, but I wouldn’t call it awareness. This will lead us to think awareness is something to find.

Who is taking note of whose activity, and why?

If I am noticing - the watcher is still present. If I am noticing certain things, discrimination is still present.

Meditation occurs when no one notices. There are no things to be discerned, for even he who notices has been seen (and allowed to rest a moment)

If I become aware of my conditioned mind - this would be interpretation.

It is not we who become something else - we either are or not.

Sorry Peter, maybe I’m just getting hung up on choice of words.

What is there to see? Is that what we are asking and we compare this with all our other ways of acting? So there is no discovery.

I don’t think so. Awareness isn’t interpretation.

If I don’t take note of something that occurs, and there’s no evidence that it did occur, it escaped notice. But is this always the case with meditation? Are you saying meditation is undetectable? Are you suggesting that people who have spent decades meditating don’t know what meditation is?

You’re speaking knowledgeably of what you say cannot be known.

1 Like

Awareness does not separate, judge, name and classify. It is neither aware of this nor that.
(and when there is awareness - the conditioned mind is not)

I don’t know what meditation is either.

I’m trying to point out what seems to be the case as far as I can make out from experience and which fits with what we know intellectually about “choiceless awareness” - it is what occurs when the self is not present - I’m saying that only when the one watching and judging is seen, can it be relaxed…

1 Like

The self is always there.It is hiding in all the states, even that of choiceless awareness, meditation without the meditator. There is no state where the self is not present. All that you are doing is trying to achieve a state of selflessness through Krishnamurti’s teachings which is bound to lead nowhere except illusory states which seems to be without the self. But, the self is there hiding, trying to become, wanting something else.Do whatsoever you may, you cannot escape from the self. This is a fact. K’s teachings are just the same as any other teachings because it lays a path which is that of choiceless awareness. Unfortunately, K could not stop at saying there is no path, but he tried to help us by showing some ways. And, this is his greatest disservice. Kick the teachings out of your system, else it will only lead to endless illusion, despair and frustration. There is nothing you can do except throw all teachers including K out of your system.

I like to say “the self has a continuous tendancy to arise”

You are the self - so we gotta agree.

Ahh here we have the basis for hours of discussion :face_with_head_bandage: :crazy_face:
1)Can I choose who I am (what I believe, condition my conditioning?)
2)If I have a system its very simple : Inquire into what is thought/self. Have no fear.

What do you propose ?

1 Like

Very good question! The chooser is conditioned. My choices are always conditioned.

1 Like

And you too. But hey, thanks for stopping by.

1 Like

There is no way out of this mess of the self/mind we are. And I am relieved by this discovery. i am less burdened. I feel free. I don’t have to do anything. I will feel all the emotions, all the experiences accumulated by humanity and I wont feel an iota of regret, of being egoistic or being self-centred. And, I don’t have to look at anybody else or get carried away by somebody who says there is a way out of it. There is no way.

An existential philosophy so to speak masked as a discovery, but where it leads to if I were to make a prediction is straight onto a crisis because of the imbalance it creates in the psyche. As they say, beneath our poised appearances we are ‘out of control’.

1 Like