We are talking about a specific insight – the insight that there is no observer. I strongly feel that there is a genetic component to this – only brains that are ‘wired’ a particular way will potentially have this insight. I understand that you may have a different perspective; I am not interested in convincing you otherwise.
The insight is the realization that isn’t another dog staring back but rather that is its image. Only after having the insight can the dog use the mirror. Only after the brain has the insight that there is no experiencer can the brain ‘look’ at what it is experiencing.
How can the brain examine if it functions with the illusion that there is the self/the observer/the conscious decision maker? The brain must examine the role of thought because psychological thought gives rise to this illusion. This examination cannot be done using thought. And only after the insight that there is no observer can there be ‘Attention’.
The dog found what the mirror has been doing so learned how to use it, by examining it from the front of it, also going behind the mirror and found nothing there and so on. Is this learning from insight?
K used the word “flash” for the way it comes… flash of insight… If this is acceptable, the rest of what you say, regardless if the rest of what you say is “truthful” or real, it is the face of an illusion. It is sitting on a false root.
what is neccessary is finding where and when ego started or concieved, who started it and how… Then the truth of ego is revealed.
When my interest in others is whether they are a threat to me or of use to me, I don’t care that relationship is more complex than friend or foe. The “the mirror of relationship” in this case, reflects nothing but a red light or a green light.
When you tell a story you have a purpose. It can have different interpretations - and it will for sure - but you can only stretch its meaning to some extent. In this case, you can say that the issue is fear of what is presented to you as a threat as you see something that may attack you. It’s good enough that this dog instead of attacking the mirror before he could be attacked he looked and got curious about what he was looking at. He got closer and looked around and realized there was nothing to be afraid of and he could still look at that image whenever he looked at the mirror. So, he accepted the coexistence with this mirror, he didn’t have to destroy it though he still understood this mirror was not of the same nature as his, he respected what was there, This means that, in his own way, he was able to establish a relationship with the mirror because he saw ‘what is’. This story can mean the same as the story of the rope and the snake told by Krishnamurti or even of what he himself did with the master who used to come to him,and which he decided to try by passing through this master thus verifying it was nothing but a projection of his imagination.
1 Like
Hi, is this based on knowledge or insight into how genes function? There’s interest to hear more about if it’s more than a feeling.
There’s questioning if dogs are capable of insight. It’s more probable that one day the dog just did not consider the other dog as a threat anymore.
This stems from a basic understanding of nature vs nurture. Can any child become a successful scientist or a successful writer? I would say no because raw ability and genuine passion must be present. Nurturing does play a role, but it will only get you so far. How we are wired plays a significant role, especially for those who are exceptional in what they do. K was like a scientist, but his interest wasn’t in the external world but in the psychological. From his many talks, I can conclude that he was genuinely passionate about exploring this field. The illusion of the observer cannot be taught; each of us must take the journey inward and have the insight. I feel certain people based on how they are ‘wired’ are better equipped to go inward.
A more fundamental way to look at this is by examining whether humans have free will. Assuming I must decide between option ‘A’ and option ‘B’ and the decision is made after a period ‘T’. The sequence of steps can be captured as shown below.
Step-1, Step-2 … Step-n.
Step-n is when I select ‘A’. If ‘B’ turns out to be the better choice, then there is regret because I didn’t choose ‘B’. But could I have chosen ‘B’? Does this idea that I could have chosen/acted differently make any sense in a universe where there is always a prior cause? But we live with this idea; it is embedded in how we function.
The story is meant to be an analogy for the ‘experiencer is the experience’ – the dog(brain) the mirror+image (the experience).
Why begin with conclusions about nature, nurture, or wiring? These abstractions move us away from directly observing the mind as it is. Is it necessary to categorize or assume capabilities based on hunches or theories?
The idea of being ‘better equipped’ to go inward presupposes division and comparison. Can we look without the filter of assumptions and observe the movement of thought itself, without attempting to analyze or conclude? Only then can insight, not rooted in prior causes, reveal itself.
Is this something you are interested in?
1 Like
What role do logic and science play in your proposal? Who is going to do this observation and how does one observe without any filters? How can you conclude that insight is not rooted in prior causes?
Logic and science have their place in the material world, but can they truly touch the deeper nature of the mind?
Observation doesn’t belong to the observer. To observe without filters is to recognize the filters, not to remove them by will, but to simply see their operation as it is.
And as for insight, it is not a conclusion, nor can it be constructed. It arises only when thought’s movement is fully understood, seen and ceases.
Can we stay with the question, not seeking answers, but allowing the inquiry to reveal itself? If not, the thinking process will keep the wheel turning, endlessly repeating what it already knows.
As an infant child there was learning how the body works. Complicated muscular movements had to be mastered. Not always in the most efficient energy saving ways but adequate to get by, to get the tasks done. Now much older, some of those hard earned learnings and habits persist into older age. The movements have long since become automatic and the fact that they had to be learned bit by bit through trial and error, long ago forgotten. Similarly with language and thinking, when was the age that ‘I’ occurred, that there appeared a ‘me’ in all this learning? A ‘center’? The fact is that it is there. Can all this be seen afresh? Not as ‘me’ looking at ‘me’ but seeing all of it, the movements, the thinking, the feelings etc, simply as they occur? As K said, as if looking at a tree or a mountain or sunlight on the water?
Thought uses the language of I, me, mine, thereby perpetuating the illusion.
That was the beginning of the ‘slavery’ of the brain.
It’s hard to say when something began or why. What matters is what’s happening now.
Does thought know it perpetuates the illusion of I, the thinker?
Can thought think without using pronouns or names; without attributing any line of thought to anyone in particular?
Thought is the illusion, I am the illusion. That’s the slavery the brain is in.
Thought is not an illusion and the actual you is not an illusion, but what you think about thought and you may not be true; may be illusions.
The “slavery the brain is in” is its confinement to thought for what it doesn’t know about thought, i.e., self-knowledge.
Can you explain what you mean by " actual you is not an illusion" . If actual you is an actuality,then what is that actual you.
You, I, we, are physical beings with conditioned brains.