If it is physical, yes we can describe that ‘the sun rises in the east’ as such.
But psychologically, we can only see it. We can’t describe it. But for verbal communication, we can use words, to share what we see. It happened for K.
On waking there is recognisiton of new condition , which is based on memory,images. How I say ,“I fel fresh” because I remember what it feels to be tired.
It does not require any “liberation”. It may last for a fraction of a second or few seconds. Just look without any thought. One’s physical body is also a part of perception with no perceiver and perceived.
Wondering is there a soul other than brain/ small self/ego/ ‘I’ or is there a universal Life expressing itself through various bodies subject to bodies limitation. There was an article where the author postulated that, just like a part of a painter’s self gets captured in his painting, may be a part of universal Life got caught in bodies it created to express itself and then it struggles to free itself.
1 Like
Absolutely. We don’t want to name it or belief it. It may be there or not there (individual/universal) (limited/unlimited) - which is not material. And through Material research - we couldn’t find it till date. But as we caught in ‘I’ which is ‘Image/belief/expreience/knowledge/etc…’ we might not feel it.
True. A hint : What did K was pointing to when he said " When ‘I’ is not, ‘Other’ is ".
Yes. We don’t know what is the ‘other’ - how does it feel. But if we observe the ‘I’ and inquire about it - we may feel the ‘other’. He sees that by ‘Negating’ the ‘I’.
How I say ,“I fel fresh” because I remember what it feels to be tired.
This remembrance of the I is only in the waking state. The same I slept peacefully in deep sleep in a state that had no objects, no world, no division. The body does not say anything in any state.
Otherwise in waking state there is only perception, no centre that is perceiving.
My reply was to the above. Now you have limited it to a few seconds in the waking state.
It does not require any “liberation”. It may last for a fraction of a second or few seconds. Just look without any thought.
It happens spontaneously to everyone for a second but that does not dissolve the I. Instructions like ‘look without any thought’ cannot make it happen. The I cannot look without thought because it is itself built on the structure of thought.
Awareness is not aware that it is aware. - K, The Urgency of Change.
But if we observe the ‘I’ and inquire about it - we may feel the ‘other’. He sees that by ‘Negating’ the ‘I’.
Need to be careful. Many K people have made ‘observing’, ‘negating’, ‘inquiring’ etc into a process for achieving or reaching awareness. Just like meditating, praying etc. which are mentioned in tradition. The I can never negate itself whatever it does. But it can certainly fool itself by substituting new words for old ones.
Yes sir. They just make a new belief that I am not ‘I’ and they tried and made them fool. But they only tried to negate that - but they hadn’t observed and inquired about it. Right?
True. I can only look.
K: " To be able to look at this seems to me all that is needed, because if we know how to look, then whole things becomes very clear, and to look needs no philosophy, no teacher. Nobody need tell you how to look. You just look."
From the book “Freedom from the known”
Was it an instruction or observation.
K : " Nobody need tell you how to look. You just look."
Was K instructing.
How can one say emphatically in deep sleep nothing happens. Just because we do not remember anything? Instead of such conclusion , Is it not better to say do not know, may be or may not be.
Need to be careful again. Labeling others as K people and feeling ‘me’ different, ‘I’ may be fooling itself.
Was it an instruction or observation.
‘Look without any thought’ is an instruction just like ‘merge with Brahman’. Besides it is impossible for the I which is a thought structure to look without any thought.
K : " Nobody need tell you how to look. You just look."
K is saying to just look, not look without any thought. To start by looking at thought itself and its structure and operation.
Was K instructing.
Are we K? Why evaluate what he was doing when we have so much work to do on ourself. In any case the difference has been pointed out.
You admit that you exist in deep sleep even in the absence of the (active) intellect. That is all. Why resist, argue and obfuscate in the waking state?
Need to be careful again. Labeling others as K people and feeling ‘me’ different, ‘I’ may be fooling itself.
Very true. In fact this understanding came about only after many decades of living in that illusion as being different from others. It is very easy to be caught in the rut of K words just like in any other system.
As K said, ’ I’ is different complex conflicting layers of thought.
So there can be be no ‘I’ active without thought.
So when there is seeing/looking without thought/ conditioning in operation , there is seeing/,looking without ‘I’ in operation.
Looking when thought is operating, is looking through a conditional mind.
To look at thought itself and it’s structure and operation while thinking is going on is just a conditioned mind looking through its own conditioning.
There is a doubt that often arises when observing self.
K has said, ‘I’/ego/self is a structure of thought in the brain. It is not just a simple structure but a complex conflicting layers of thought.
But he also said it is’ cunning’. This I have found to be very true.But cunning’ expressionis used only with intelligence, living entity. We do not say cunning’ stone.
So my question is, is there a cunning intelligence behind ‘I’/ ego/self.
Not at all. Observing takes place without any conditions.
Say you observe a tree. What happens then? If you let thought comes in that “that it is a tree”, “the tree is green”,“the tree is so short” - then there is a conditioned mind. But if no thought comes in - it is just observing - thats all.
Like wise - If after thought arises, that ‘it is a tree’ likewise - but if you observe it - It disappears.
This is not true and certainly not what K said if that matters. For what it is worth K told people to ‘begin where you are’. He was talking to conditioned people. And we can only begin by looking at thought and its operation. The process of inquiry itself uses thought. ‘Looking without thought’ may be one’s interpretation of the finality but it is certainly not the starting point. If one is already without thought there is no need to inquire nor to understand the I or thought structure.
What actually happens? Does thought come in or not? ‘If no thought comes’ is only a theory. But our minds are filled with theories and K theories can be attractive because they seem logical. There is no point in saying that if horses grow feathers they will start to fly.
A identifies itself as “the world” of humanity, and B identifies itself as a separate person.
If A identifies with every other human alive at this moment, and every other human identifies as its exclusive self, A is outside of the ongoing conspiracy to maintain the illusion of self. To A, the whole structure and mechanism of that illusion is revealed, and almost every human is transfixed by it.
A is humanity as it is - not as humans believe themselves to be. Therefore, A, being free to be nobody and everybody, is free to speak to B about why B is not free.