Yes, it was a very clear explanation. Another way to look at it is to extend the phrase ‘what is’ into ‘what is happening now’ or ‘what is the state of the brain.’ (Possibly, the word ‘reality’ covers this aspect too, from what one remembers of the conversations with Dr Bohm.) We can observe these daily happenings, realities or reactions as they arise, as we notice what is happening to us in the course of our relationships with others and with the wider world. And it is possible to be aware of these things - these moments of anger, surprise, fear, delight - without thought doing anything else about them. This inaction on the part of thought brings about a significant change in our relationship with the world.
1 Like
So this is our question, our ‘what is.’ And you are right to place emphasis here on the word ‘we’ because the transformation takes place in relationship.
Ok…
So life challenges me in any of its many ways, a challenge to which I react (whatever that reaction is), but because I am attentive an awareness arises that has the power to transform.
Now, is that transformation
- conscious (i.e., thought is aware of it)?
- “invisible” for thought (i.e., it belongs only to the realm of awareness and acts independently of thought)?
- both?
- neither?
Therefore let’s consider all those things to which we pay attention in our daily life and the degree to which this attention is governed by a sense of reward or punishment. In other words, how we are inclined to look at things only when there is a strong element of self-interest in it. So it may be that the reaction itself is the true moment of transformation, not anything else we may do or try not to do in its wake. After all, the reaction is the self out in the open: “I am angry; here I am.” Everything that comes after this moment is about the observer performing damage limitation.
It is not just about anger. Exactly the same kind of crisis may be expressed as, “I love you; here I am.”
This is interesting, as it would undoubtedly open the door to observe two types of attention…
-
An attention based on the conditioned observation of the cause prior to the reaction, as “reward” (I love you) or “punishment” (you are a stupid moron).
-
An attention that has nothing to do with the previous one, that would arise at the same instant in which the reaction arises, with its own movement and that would open the door to an actual transformation.
Now, it seems obvious that the first would not transform anything since the only thing it would do would be to change the wrapping, leaving the content the same, and simply creating the illusion that it has changed. While the second, if it were to occur, would produce an actual change. But what exactly would change?
It certainly could be as you say… Someone comes to me and says or does something that makes me angry. At that point there is only the reaction, that anger, which may itself have the capacity for transformation.
Now, does that reaction require something additional to produce that transformation (such as attention and insight/thought-free-awareness as I pointed out earlier), or does the reaction itself have the capacity to transform without the need for something additional?
Yes, of course.
We are starting to see that there is a difference between the nature of the self and the nature of the observer, even though they co-exist and overlap in our daily lives. Putting it very simply, the self is naturally selfish and the observer is determined to keep this natural selfishness under wraps. The self is the ‘what is’ and the observer is the ‘what should be.’ It is the observer who always thinks in terms of something additional to resolve the problems of the difficult self: insight, awareness, attention, intelligence, love, compassion. These are all ideals. The observer wants to impose these ideals upon its own view of reality. But to see that these are all ideals is also insight, awareness, attention, intelligence, love and compassion. Then love as the ideal and love as the actuality are two very different things. While the observer is present, active, involved, it will always be a case of playing around with ideals, because the observer itself is also an ideal. And the observer is incapable of seeing the truth of this. For it is a perception that only makes total sense when there is no perceiver, no observer.
Again, this is a question being put by an observer who is desperate to get at the truth. So what matters is neither the question nor its answer. What matters is the desperation, the exact nature of the impulse that says, “I must find out the truth.” The observer will only find a truth that comes as an acceptable package of idealism with its familiar wrappings. Whereas you and I now must find ourselves somewhere else which is not in the world of ideals. A change has already taken place; and it is only the observer who objects to this.
[Edited as requested. No changes made. Not sure why this was flagged as inappropriate.]
do i feel the arising ?
some words to give an idea of that question .
. irritation . force . knowledge . argument . behaviour . inner voice . look . whatch . check . strengthen ?
the arising thought , motivation , judgment and feeling and so on .
its arising . it needs time my friend
The arising can only come from memory - that’s where all those words come from - because there is no other source for the mind to draw upon. Love has no source nor origin nor history. Love is there when the mind is completely empty. Love is the empty mind. Nothing else matters; nothing else has any value; it is the only first-hand reality.
yes , it comes from memory , and it takes time , and we already know it because we remember .
If we are here to create a space were we can whatch the structure and process of thought we might slow down this thing and get to see the arising of thought .
At the Moment of its activity . to learn about it directly .
what Do you feel ?
can we talk thought , predjudices and ideas , worrys and all its complications away ?
Or is there a need to face it to its death ?
is there any somthing in you when you hear this
The more we talk about thought, the more complicated it gets. For behind all of this talk is the question of what is doing the talking, what is creating the space where we can watch the arising of thought, what is learning about thought and what is facing thought to its death. Or none of this matters at all and we are in a strange new place with a completely fresh mind. Only then does it make sense to employ thought and language.
[Edited as requested. No changes made. Not sure why this was flagged as inappropriate.]
1 Like
May I ask why someone flagged this @Anon post? What did he or she find offensive in his/her words? I’m really, really interested… 
1 Like
@Dano also had a post that seemed pretty innocent flagged and temporarily hidden for a while - strange stuff happening on kinfonet?
That’s the feeling I got, hence my question… because I had read the post and did not see anything disrespectful towards any member of the forum, or the forum in general. Anyway, let’s wait, maybe it will reappear.
EDIT: I just realized that this post addressed to me (without any disrespect towards me) and that I had pending to answer to continue our conversation, has also been flagged.
Strange things are definitely happening on Kinfonet!
The only way to find out is to remain with your anger the next time you get angry and see what happens.
I totally agree with you. But let’s recap:
Someone comes to me and tells me something to which “I” react (either on the basis of a feeling of reward or punishment). Now all there is is the “I” making its “star appearance” in the form of that reaction. Then, if at that precise moment thought does not interfere in the observation of that reaction, an awareness of it can arise, capable of provoking a change, a transformation (which will most likely be temporary, that is, until thought interferes again with its conditioned patterns of behavior). Then, this awareness will last as long as the attention that sustains it (which does not depend on the will of the “I”), is there.
Now let me share a conversation I had this morning with a good friend of mine about the interference of the self on that attention, which I think might be relevant to our discussion.
The background is that his brother committed suicide almost two years ago, leaving his mother, sister and himself alone (the father is already dead) with the usual questions that thought asks in situations like this: ‘I could have done more’, ‘How did I not realize he was going to do that?’, etc. So at one point in our conversation he said ‘the other day I was talking to my mother and she told me about all her suffering over the loss. I told her that there was no point in continually remembering what had happened, as it was as if we liked to rejoice in that suffering, while realizing that there was nothing I could do to free her from her suffering.’
At that moment we began to observe what happens in those moments when the awareness arises, and what the thought does to regain control of the situation. Summarizing, and not to extend too much, in this observation we have seen that when the awareness appears, the thought is silent until suddenly it realizes that it is not participating in the action. Then the way he has to regain control of the situation is to bring up the stored conditionings, our habitual patterns of behavior, so that if the attention is not preserved, one succumbs to their influence and the awareness vanishes just as it came.
In the case of our conversation and what we were observing, it would translate into: (1) the awareness arises that one cannot do anything to free the other from his ignorance, (2) yet, as that awareness has its own action one remains there without psychologically separating oneself from the other. At that moment (3) the thought realizes that it is not active and begins to wonder what is happening, how is it that he is not in control of the situation? And (4) to regain control of the situation he flips the conditioning switch: ‘What do you mean you can’t do anything? You can always do something else for the other person, etc.’.
If at that moment one succumbs to such an attack, one loses one’s attention and with it one’s awareness, and one reverts to the well-known conditioned thought patterns.
Does all this mean anything to you?
To anyone around here?
Just as the transformation of a caterpillar to a moth or butterfly is irrevocable, so is brain transformation, even when only partial.
what happens in those moments when the awareness arises… when the awareness appears,
Awareness is beyond the brain. It doesn’t arise or appear - it is constant when the brain is not sound asleep or comatose. The problem is that the brain’s psychological content reacts to awareness, causing confusion and conflict.
Yes, you’re right.
Now let me ask, does this (
) necessarily imply that thought will interfere again and again?
And what about the end of my post? ()
When the brain has a partial insight, part of its psychological content is understood and thereby obliterated, which means that particular reaction is history.