Alright, so the brain is creating the ‘me’ as being a separate entity who is ‘having’ experiences in the ‘reality’, that the brain is also creating…like a play. K comes along and says there is no separate you, “you don’t exist “! (Which he did say!)
Does this sound right? That there is no you or me as such? That that has been a fabrication by thought…which is also a process in the brain?
If it’s a task, I’m not interested. I have too many tasks as it is.
Nevertheless, my stream of consciousness (the replaying of my past and the conclusions drawn from it) is the brain reminding itself of who and what it is, so for the brain to react to what it is doing instead of taking an interest in what it is doing, is just buying time, a waste of energy.
The streaming goes on, like it or not. It is the default mode of consciousness, and taking it to task is reacting to what defines I, me, mine. So why not be interested in what this streaming content is achieving by its compulsive persistence?
The observer/observed thingy seems to pointing at “no separate you” - in terms of experience. (though no separate you in terms of existence can be argued for too, as in the self as something arising from everything else)
If we consider the effects of self, we must surely accept that its existence is difficult to deny. What we are being asked to do is to see what the self is - for example it might be a process with inherent dangers - and thus allow intelligence to act.
Yes that’s the task but without the name-calling which is the looking from the past, the observer, the known?
Is there a doubt? The non-entity known as macdougdoug might consider itself to be a ‘Frenchman’ and the Dan non-entity believes itself to be an ‘American’ (which of course is the superior thing to be.) Non?
Difficult to determine these days 
As long as I see it as a task, something I must do, I’m still reacting to it, still buying time and wasting energy by doing what I believe I should do, which is my problem to begin with, i.e., pretending to know what I should do.
So the approach to ‘self-knowledge’ is all important. Any motive is the self chasing self. That is why seeing that the observer is the observed is necessary?
1 Like
My task is to discover and negate whatever blocks intelligence… and to ‘surrender’ to awareness?
More like abject failure chasing glorious success.
Your task is to forget about your task because you, the task-master is the problem. Why do you think you can solve a problem, the mechanics of which you can only react to? Reaction, conditioned response, is the problem.
It’s like seeing your reflection in a mirror and reacting to it according to what you believe you should look like instead of taking an interest in your actual reflection.
K was speaking truth from non-ordinary states of consciousness that have been accessed by humans throughout centuries. Today, people who meditate or take plant therapies can also access these states. K was inducted as a child by the theosophists and rigorously trained in their methods of meditation, lifestyle and the “high initiatory process”. (Theosophy was founded by Blavatsky.)
" It appears, if one studies carefully, that an actual drink is involved as part of a high initiatory process, although the term and its imagery do also have great symbolic meaning and significance. By “high initiatory process” here we are not now referring to Hindu Brahmin priests but to the Great Brotherhood of Initiates, Adepts, Masters of Wisdom, or Mahatmas." Blavatsky on Soma
“According to the exoteric explanation the soma is a plant, but, at the same time it is an angel. It forcibly connects the inner, highest “spirit” of man, which spirit is an angel like the mystical soma, with his “irrational soul,” or astral body, and thus united by the power of the magic drink, they soar together above physical nature, and participate during life in the beatitude and ineffable glories of Heaven.”
― Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled (Vol.1&2): A Master-Key to the Mysteries of Ancient and Modern Science and Theology
Hello, De Niro!
I understand that what you say above about being separate is basically a matter of semantics. You go on saying that body and its environment are connected so you have to be careful that you’re not contradicting yourself. It seems to me that connection actually implies the idea of separation, otherwise you wouldn’t need any sort of connection. On my part, because I am in ‘the cloud of unknowing’, I can only say that everything is related, as Krishnamurti says: ‘to live is to relate’ and this is good enough for me and I have to live accordingly as a human being. Krishnamurti makes many sorts of statements, even sounding contradictory at times, we have to put it all in context.
Thank you for your comments, Jess. I guess it’s enough to say that the body and its environment cannot be separate.