Dog and the Mirror

Kinfonet Discussion
63

The mind

What do you mean by the mind? Your response implies that the mind is not of the material world – how do you know such a thing exists?

My understanding of K is that when the brain is in order, when it is quiet and not burdened by sorrow, it may touch something sacred. My interest is only in bringing about order in myself. Based on what K was saying, this does not require appealing to anything metaphysical, but it demands questioning everything pertaining to the psychological (“be a light to oneself”).

Observation

The observation as you described can only take place after having the insight that there is no observer. How can I attempt such observation if I am caught in the illusion of the observer?

Insight
Simple because it cannot be constructed means insight doesn’t have prior causes. For example, I am stuck with a problem, and so I gave up trying to solve the problem. Hours may go by, or sometimes several days, then suddenly I have the solution to the problem. I may not know how my brain was able to connect all the pieces and arrive at the solution, but that doesn’t mean my insight into the problem doesn’t have a prior cause. The brain is a material structure bounded by the laws of physics.

My perspective is that only after the insight that there is no observer can the movement of thought be understood.

1 Like
64

All very valid considerations, but why concern yourself with what others know, understand, or have expressed?

To seek guidance or validation through someone else’s words, whether it be K or anyone else, is to step away from what is most vital to understanding: direct perception of yourself as you are, without distortion.

There is no method, no process, no step-by-step guide to understanding the mind, observation, or insight. These do not arise through effort or accumulation of knowledge, for all that arises from thought only perpetuates its fragmentation. Do we see how this fragmentation manifests for example on this forum?

If thinking together with others helps clarify the right intention, it may have its place. But if conversation becomes an exchange of theories, perspectives, or borrowed knowledge, then perhaps it is better to first calm the mind and inquire within. These questions require tremendous amount of energy if one is to inquire into them seriously, and our whole conditioning has evolved to use up all of it for its own petty functioning.

1 Like
65

I question that the dog has learned anything about himself using the mirror if he needs to adjust what he sees reflected in the mirror. Why should he make any adjustments in the first place, after he has seen himself reflected in the mirror as he is?

This is an oxymoron. If the brain has the insight that there is no experiencer, whose experience is it going to look at if the one who should experience it is no longer there?

66

How simple and beautifully expressed this is!
Thank you @macdougdoug :pray:

67

Would you let me doubt this strong statement? It may be that some of us directly see the role our mind plays in co-creating our reality, but more likely the vast majority of us only see it through an intellectual/logical understanding that it can be so by seeing some truth in it.

Is it lucidity to realize that one is dreaming and then believe that one has the power to modify the dream (including oneself) at will, or is that still part of the dream?

So, the answer to your question about what prevents us from waking up from the dream may well be to think that we have woken up when we are still dreaming.

68

I was using ‘we’ to mean the regulars here.

We here all see, to varying degrees, the role our mind plays in co-creating our reality.

Is it lucidity to realize that one is dreaming and then believe that one has the power to modify the dream (including oneself) at will, or is that still part of the dream?

For me this would be part of the dream.

69

When thinking, there’s awareness of thinking, but when no thinking is required, there’s awareness of how thought goes on needlessly and mindlessly. So it seems that when thought is thinking deliberately, purposely, trying to solve a problem, that I am the thinker. But if I am the thinker, why can’t I stop thinking?

So there is no thinker. There is just thoughtful thought and mindless thought, and thoughtful thought can’t stop mindless thought.

It seems that mindless thought has to stop for the brain to realize that no thought is as necessary as thoughtful thought. But that’s just what thoughtful thought thinks.

70

You asked @jmsaario how he knows (apparently) that the mind is not of the material world. Well, let me ask you now: how do you know if you are “being a light to yourself”, or on the contrary is it all just another trick of thought perverting everything once again?

May I know exactly on what basis you make such a assertion?

Are you asking @jmsaario for a method? :thinking:

Does that mean that there is a prior cause?
If it is so, which one if I may ask?

On the other hand, insight has nothing to do with problem solving, since it is only thought that first creates the problem by defining it, and then tries to solve it on the basis of the definition that it itself (or the thought of someone else) has created, thanks to which it dares to say “now I know” once it has solved that particular problem, adding it to its database, which is its consciousness. This will obviously mean that any similar problem he encounters in the future will no longer be new, and therefore limited by this accumulated (or prior) knowledge of the past.

Insight, on the contrary, is direct perception and as such does not register anything, that is why it always “approaches” any situation as new, armed with its inseparable friend, the attention.

So let me ask you, what prior cause could insight have then?

So, according to you, the first thing is to see that there is no observer, and only then can one see the movement of thought, since without the first the second is impossible, right?

Well, a typical rational and scientific view of thought itself, which, unfortunately for it, has nothing to do with the insight it thinks it knows (and possesses).

71

I understand, thanks Rick!

For me too, but there may be someone around here who sees it differently, and who would be interesting to listen to as well.

72

The brain registers sensation, experience. There comes a time when the accumulation of sensations becomes a sensation itself. You are born and usually condition the brain until the body dies. Do you get this or no?

73

Is it this ‘accumulation of sensations’ that becomes the illusory ‘me and mine’? And then this I / center conditions the brain’ throughout the life of the body? The brain does not reject this situation because it affords the brain a necessary sense of security? Of continuity?

74

There is no actual self. There’s only thinking,

75

Yes but the ‘self’ ,as thought, believes that it exists separately from thought? I believe that I exist. Isn’t that the accumulation of sensations you referred to? That was how ‘I’ was ‘born’?

76

You mention the idea of self-as-thought believing it exists separately from thought. This suggests the self is a real semi-independent entity with agency. Is this true? Maybe it’s like a thunderstorm. There is an overarching process (thunderstorm, self) that is composed of interdependent sub-processes (humidity pressure atmosphere, thought imagination memory). The thunderstorm and self occur (as processes), but there is no thunderstormer or self-entity that preside over these processes. They just happen, there is no agent-entity or owner.

77

Don’t you believe that you exist separately from thought and that you have agency?

78

Do you “get” that you get what you choose to get; that it’s all about you, the getter?

1 Like
79

When thinking is deliberate it can think critically, practically, impersonally, and has the agency to solve problems. But because thought is mindlessly streaming its content when it is not deliberate, not serious, the brain is deprived of the silence that allows for clarity.

1 Like
80

I think this is what it feels like but question whether it’s true.

I may exist like a thunderstorm with no thunderstormer, processes uninhabited by self, lots happening but no one in charge. Or there may be a true self who I really am. I oscillate between these views, along with the view that all views are empty.

81

Let me elaborate…

  •   There is the biological organism.

  •   The brain is part of this biological organism, and the brain does the decision-making for the organism.

  •   The biological organism has experiences.  Experiences can be divided into external experiences and internal experiences.

  •   External experiences originate from the biological organism's interaction with the external environment via its senses.

  •   Internal experiences are the sensations and feelings that originate within the biological organism.

  •   The self is the conscious decision maker; it is the perceived master of the biological organism.  This is not an exhaustive description of the self.

  •   The internal experiences (not all) and the self are intertwined – “the experiencer is the experience”.  For example, the thought “I chose” and the accompanying urge (will) give rise to the illusion that the self is the one who is choosing.

Once the brain has the insight that the self is an illusion, it can examine without any distortion what the biological organism is experiencing. For example, the biological organism is angry; this is the state of the organism; it is feedback to the brain and allows the brain to make adjustments. The brain can learn (not learning via thought or thinking) how anger arises and how it is sustained. As it learns about anger, anger begins to lose its hold on the biological organism. The frequency of anger reduces, the intensity of the feeling subsides, and the time to transition back to a neutral state diminishes.

Having the insight that the self is an illusion does not mean you are in some extraordinary state for the rest of your existence. There is still lots of work to be done to bring about order in oneself and to maintain that order. Many of K’s talks are meant for after you have the insight that there is no self.

The brain becomes watchful, vigilant of what is happening internally after it has the insight. This watchfulness cannot be done through will.

J Krishnamurti:
The self has many, many masks - you understand? The mask of meditation, the mask of achieving the highest, the mask that I am enlightened. I know of which I speak of - you know. All this concern about humanity - that is another mask. So one has to be extraordinary, have a subtle mind - quick mind, brain rather, not mind, to see where it is hiding. You understand this? It requires great attention, watching, watching, watching. You won’t do all this. Probably you are all too lazy, or too old and say, ‘For god’s sake, all this is not worth it. Let me alone.’ But if one really wants to go into this very deeply one has to watch like a hawk every movement of thought, every movement of reaction, so the brain can be free from its conditioning. I am speaking, the speaker is speaking for himself, not for anybody else. He may be deceiving himself - right? He may be trying to pretend to be something or other - you understand? He may be, you don’t know. So have a great deal of scepticism, doubt, question - not what others say, yourself.

82

You are assuming that I am merely repeating what I have accumulated from others.

“direct perception of yourself as you are, without distortion.”
This can only take place after one has the insight that there is no observer. Why make such comments when only a very few would have such an insight? I wasn’t asking for a method but trying to understand your rationale.

“our whole conditioning has evolved to use up all of it for its own petty functioning.”
Self-centeredness, the inner disorder is advantageous from a survival perspective. It gives rise to the constant need to become which manifests outwardly. This is the tragedy of our species.