I sat for 5-10 minutes, eyes closed, not trying to do anything mentally. I experienced thoughts and feelings arising, sometimes coherent, sometimes chaotic. Things slowed down, but thought persisted, images, feelings. A few times I felt a pull towards sleep, unconsciousness. For a moment, awareness seemed revealed, but it faded quickly. Will repeat the experiment at various times throughout the day.

When the I is functioning - then I creates both inside and outside. (there is no inside or outside without the I)

1 Like

I think that’s valid: My view, whatever it happens to be, is largely the result of my conditioning.

I wouldn’t say that’s why I’m here, though I agree that following your conditioning, especially if you are unaware you are doing it, can lead to conflict on all levels, from individual to collective.

The reasoning is very simple: In order that X is seen (perceived, sensed), X must be an object. The seer is by definition not an object but a subject. X can only be seen if it is ‘cast’ as an object, as when the eye sees the eye cast as a reflection in the mirror, or a photograph, or a thought.

The presence of the I/me process creates the imaginary division…an imaginary reality, of which it is the center. I/me is a misplaced process of thought that occupies the brain and prevents it from being silent. Having heard of ‘silence’, it can desire it, seek it, practice it etc but it’s attempts are all only more ‘noise’.
The situation is ‘damned if you do and damned if you don’t’…understanding the situation may be the only way it ends.

If you think you can do this, you’re deceiving yourself because so much of the conditioned brain’s reactions are too subtle and subliminal for it to be aware of. The conditioned brain is dulled by its reactive response and psychological thinking, and is not aware of all of its reactions.

See that state of mind which is without conflict. You have discovered choiceless awareness which is not thought. An awareness which is not thought.

This is an example of what the conditioned brain can (and in your case, does) believe about itself.

It’s the spiritual seeker’s catch-22!

Anyone have experiments to explore things Krishnamurti talked about? ‘Explore’ can have different meanings for different people. Exploring X might mean verifying X (for yourself), seeing what the key consequences of X are, directly experiencing X, finding out what happens when X is seen from different points of view.

Experiment: Living without escapes

  1. Find all your escapes, one by one, and put each escape aside (let it go).
  2. Observe the putting-aside process: what’s easy, what’s hard, what’s possible, what’s not.
  3. Observe how you feel and how you see your self and the world without (with fewer) escapes.

The brain is damned by choosing to be someone; not damned for having no such choice.

1 Like

Experiment: Observing observing

  1. Using your default observation ‘tools’ spend a few minutes observing what-is.
  2. Keep observing what-is without using any words.
  3. Keep observing what-is without using any words or images.
  4. Keep observing what-is without using any words or images or ideas.
  5. Keep observing what-is without using any words or images or ideas or sensations.
  6. Keep observing what-is without using any words or images or ideas or sensations or feelings.
  7. Observe what is left to observe.

This is actually what classical Buddhist meditation involves. They split this process up into distinct ‘dhyānas’ (or ‘jhānas’) - as you have implicitly done here - in which there is progressively less and less cognitive and affective activity; until the mind is completely empty (sometimes referred to as ‘nirodha samāpatti’, a state of “cessation of perception, feelings and consciousness”).

Aha! I’ve seen similar meditations, but didn’t know they were part of the Buddhist canon. Thanks!

Is nirodha samāpatti like a suped-up version of samadhi?

I guess ‘samadhi’ is being used in the context of Advaita or Yoga here?

I haven’t really studied the usage and meaning of the term ‘samadhi’, but I take it to mean a state of contemplative absorption. If so, then nirodha samāpatti might be understood to mean the ultimate or most complete state of contemplative absorption (though people may object to the word ‘absorption’ in this context).

In the language of the Yoga tradition asamprajñata samādhi (or nirvikalpa samādhi) would be the equivalent of nirodha samāpatti. This would make sense because there is strong evidence that Patanjali’s Yoga system was influenced by Buddhism.

If there is a strong feeling or emotion in the mind, then thought is not able to solve it, escape from it or supress it.
In silence the emotion flowers, moves. In silence the feeling or emotion does not have an effect on the mind, otherwise if thought is active, thought is affected by the feeling. Observer is affected by psychological observed, experiencer is affected by experience psychologically.
In silence there is no effect, no observer.
We feel cause is the observed. Cause and effect is observer. Without observer, without thought, without psychological centre there is no cause and effect, the observed flowers in the space of silence

The experiment would be something like:

  1. When there is a strong feeling or emotion, be (with) it.
  2. Observe what happens without thought, memory, or analysis.
  3. When the feelings and emotions have dissipated, take stock and, if you’re into it, share.


I would delete step 2 because the PC brain can’t “observe without thought, memory, or analysis”.

What the PC brain can do is stay with the feeling instead of reflexively escaping, and see what happens. That’s an experiment anyone can do at any time.

Experiment: Staying with a strong feeling or emotion

  1. When there is a strong feeling or emotion, be (with) it.
  2. When the feelings and emotions have dissipated, take stock and, if you’re into it, share.

If you ask question, Who am I?
What is answer to this question?
Who is asking the question?
Who is answering the question?
Is it thought asking the question?
Is it thinker answering the question?
If it is thought asking and answering, then that is the ego, identity.
Answer will be out of conditioning.
I am Indian, Hindu, Muslim, American, Russian or what not.
That is ego, conditioning.

If answer is not thought but awareness, space, silence, then that is not ego.

Who am I?
Awareness that is not thought.
Perception silence that is not thought.

And from that perspective, the self / ego is “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing”?

Thank you for saying ‘from that perspective,’ it makes all the difference (to me). :slight_smile: