How to look without the past?
Is it possible for me to look, without me (and what I see) being present?
The answer logically is no.
Does nonconceptual awareness ever arise? If so, why are we still in such a mess?
Yes, it is possible to look without past, if there is no naming.
Thought can never understand silence or absence of itself.
If you say something and I call you an idiot, it is naming, thought.
If however there is no naming, there is no past, no future, no psychological memory.
The me exists only as memory. Without naming, there is no memory and no me. As K said, flight of eagle does not leave a mark in the sky. There is no mark of memory as me.
What is that state without thought, without judgement, without memory. It is vast space, silence, freedom. It is action in freedom without conflict. Some call it āflowā, but it is not memory.
With psychological thought, there is reactive, reflexive naming.
Thought can never understand silence or absence of itself.
Thereās no way of knowing that without silence and absence of self.
If however there is no naming, there is no past, no future, no psychological memory.
Not necessarily. Quite often the conditioned brain doesnāt know how to react, does nothing, and there is no namingā¦not because āthere is no past, no future, no psychological memoryā.
The me exists only as memory.
Depends what you mean by āmeā. The eternal Now is a succession of moments, an unfolding wherein who/what I am is an ongoing development. Every moment āmeā is something different, how ever subtle the difference may be, regardless of what it was in the past.
What is that state without thought, without judgement, without memory. It is vast space, silence, freedom. It is action in freedom without conflict. Some call it āflowā, but it is not memory.
This is what Krishnamurti said, and we believe he spoke the truth. But we donāt actually know this is true because so much of what the conditioned brain purports to know, it merely believes, presumes to know.
When āvast space, silence, freedomā are not just words, concepts, is one limited to and bound by Krishnamurtiās teaching, or enlightened enough to act outside of, beyond it?
YOU ASK: How to look without the observer( past)?
Suppose I look at a faceā¦ soon I realize that I have started evaluating that person
My internal comments are now louder then the face, I hear my comments only
Then, the āmeā says: āI am judgingā, Why ? I shouldnāt judge !"
The question is:
What stops this fragmentation in looking ?
Cause what makes the fragmentaion is evident: thought !
The looking appears as it has gaps in it, and thoughts fill these gaps.
In fact, there is no looking, just thoughts, coming in succession, one thought calls another thought (cause thought canāt survive alone).
If I could see how thought ādiesā, maybe the succession of thoughts stops.
I am not giving a solution, it is all I can say for now.
Is it that I never follow a thought until its end ā¦? Because another thought takes over ? Yea, the succession
is it because I donāt even look at thought ā¦? I look at what it says, not at what is does ? how it moves ?
This is nicely put!
It is evident in relationship that the greater part of communication involves the (recurrent) projection of thought and feeling. There is then an opportunity to become aware of, look at, this projection (as it is occurring), which illuminates the activity of the brain.
This is a good point. Without āilluminationā / insight, the brain operates always within its limits, along its neural pathways, in ādarknessā? Insight can reveal the presence of the limiting āselfā. And new neural paths can be made but energy is needed to form the connections. The āself complexā contains the paths of least resistance where thought is almost constantly active.
Yes. The āself complexā has been put together in the dark, in the absence of awareness, over time; and the presence of awareness (right now) illuminates this fabrication of thought and begins to dissolve it.
As you say, this must involve a neurological component too.
Because the movement of the thought-made āself complexā has set down physical and chemical neural pathways in the brain, the illumination of this complex (by awareness) involves the physical and chemical dissolution and rewiring of these same neural pathways.
So the subtle energy of passive awareness affects the physical brain.
1 Like
Yes it would seem the āseeing is the doingā?
1 Like
What I am trying to say is this (the scenario is a bit hilariousā¦):
Suppose, strangers and neighbors enter my home uninvited (people = random thoughts) my home ( = the space of my mind)
These people talk to me, talk to each other, come and go in my home (= the noise and the movement of thoughts in my mind )
Here are the questions: what is the complete way to observe these people (thoughts ) ? by the noise (= words) they make ? by how they make me feel (another type of noise, personal, internal noise) ? by how they interact to each other (thoughts want more thoughts) ? what else is to be seen about/in a thought ?
I am trying to discover what it means to look at my mind completely, as K would say ? I am inclined to look at the noise thought makes, the noise is the simplest way to detect the thought. Once the noise is gone, thought is still thereā¦ but āinvisibleāā¦ in a sense, I want to detect the ānon visibleā.
It never came to my mind āhowā but I see the necessity of looking at myself without the past registrations.
Why would it stop? What if it stops only when its activity is seen for what it is?
If I could see how thought ādiesā, maybe the succession of thoughts stops.
When my interest in how, why, and when psychological thought operates subsumes my desire for it to ādieā, what happens?
Is it that I never follow a thought until its end Because another thought takes over?
If thereās interest in what thought is doing, thereās interest in where it goes.
1 Like
What does it mean to look?
What does it means to observe with the eyes
āHow to look without the observer?ā
That is a very good question. Because we do look with the observer in the background. The observer is measuring the present with the past sticks.
The observer is thought, the psychological measure, the psychological comparing.