If it’s true that there is no observation as long as there is an observer, “simply observing” would mean being as close to observation as the observer can get.
The logic of it is fairly straightforward. When thought no longer interferes with the violence it has itself brought into being, both thought and violence must undergo a radical change. The evidence for it is not so straightforward because that only shows itself in our relationship, which one might call the proof in the pudding.
It may well be that what is being said is no different from that which has been said a thousand times before. What has changed may simply be the manner in which it is listened to.
What about social skills ? Do you see any point in those? In terms of communicating ideas - or is there no point when it comes to humans? Is it all about separating the wheat from the chaff in your view? No point in false modesty?
Thought can’t “undergo a radical change” without becoming something other than thought.
There’s nothing wrong with thought. What’s wrong is the illusion of the thinker that thinks it’s in a relationship with thought. The brain must undergo the radical change of realizing what thought is, and putting it in its proper place.
Simply meaning purely, not casually. The Buddhist term ‘vivid awareness’ is close to what I’m trying to point to with ‘conscious awareness’: a state of vivid, clear, sharp, and heightened awareness. Look at an object and gradually let the full power of awareness find its way into the looking. It’s a subtle but profound shift! Which you probably know from Zen meditation?
Do you see what you are saying? Where has the illusion of the thinker come from if not from thought itself? The thinker is the thought. They are not two separate areas of activity within the same brain. So the radical change is not about thought becoming something other than itself. That is a speculative opinion. First it is necessary to change. Any talk about change without this radical transformation is merely adding to the confusion around the issue. But if one simply remains confused without seeking to assuage the confusion in any way then a change has already taken place, because thought undergoes a radical transformation when it ceases altogether to become something else.
What you have been saying recently about observation feels fine to me.
If I had to point out a potentail danger/confusion, it is one of intent/motivation/effort.
Zen meditation is “good for nothing” (Dôgen) - we do not do stuff (eg. look at objects) in order to arrive at any particular, special state. That would be confusion. That would be acting within the power of the known/desire/motive - it would be the normal movement of self and suffering.
We start from acceptation or “just this” and remain with compassion for what is. There is only one step, and that is freedom from what should be.
1 Like
Ah! Thanks for changing this - I have been struggling not to point out any examples of apparently faulty logic on your part - so as not to encourage resistance between us (you and me)
So the answer is : not necessarily. And even if there is self consciousness ie. conscious self-recognition - like “I know that I have been having these particular thoughts” - this is not liberation from the known, it is just knowing in the form of self-recognition or self-reference.
Zen awareness is more of a 'just – " awareness: just sit, just look, just be. Vivid awareness is heightened awareness: SIT, LOOK, BE! Both have their place?
Thanks for reminding us of what Krishnamurti said, but what you fail to add to this statement is that we don’t/can’t see the truth, the actuality of the statement because of constant, continuous thought. Without silence, there is no direct perception at all.
if one simply remains confused without seeking to assuage the confusion in any way then a change has already taken place
Thanks again for reminding us of what Krishnamurti said and we believe to be true, but can’t see it for ourselves the without the silence that allows for seeing.
Or maybe you think you see what us K-believers know we don’t actually see.
Then stop being a K-believer. Obviously it doesn’t work.
One of the first things zen practitioners will hopefully notice is that we cannot just sit.
Their meditation then becomes at best a continuous game of realisation/awareness (of being constantly lost in thought) - and letting go (of the train of thought).
If they stick with this boring stuff long enough they might end up going on a meditation retreat (Sesshin) where they are faced with seemingly endless boredom and horrible pain (in their crossed legs and butts usually) - the lucky ones will reach a point where they accept death. And here a door opens.
What do you mean? I don’t know what this is.
This Tibetan Buddhist Khenpo Gangshar taught “Vivid Awareness” meditation designed for managing especially difficult emotional times. By vivid awareness he means: intense awareness, clear and deep understanding, rich perception. When I use the term I’m referring to the intense-clear-richness, not the meditation style.
A K-believer in denial is worse than an honest K-believer.
You would have us believe you’re beyond thought, selfless, etc., but you’re the only one who believes it.
If you think you have figured things out here, you will (hopefully) have a rude awakening.
If you think Paul isn’t self-deluded, your awakening is unlikely.
If things here are worse than I’ve thought, I’ll gladly leave you to yourselves.
I don’t know who ‘Paul’ is and I don’t care. Why the hell do you?
My post came after you and had nothing to do with you.
‘If you think you have figured things out here, (on earth) you will (hopefully) have a rude awakening.’
There is no such place as beyond - whether it is beyond thought, beyond the self or beyond confusion - because psychologically there is only now and nowhere else. We are what we are, not what we believe we should be. This is our challenge: to meet one another now at exactly the same time and in the same place, not from two imaginary levels of existence, not as teacher and student, not as expert and novice. It is a very strange place because although we are always in it, we have never really lived there except for maybe one or two fleeting seconds when thought, the self and its various confusions has been temporarily absent from our minds. So it is not about going beyond; it is about remaining within and living from there.
Our inner lives are full of turmoil and conflict, which is the residue of unresolved experiences and unfulfilled desires and ambitions. Maybe you feel your inner life is different, that you are free from conflict, I don’t know. What matters is to find out the reality of this inner life and not to fill it with more ideas. That’s why we are here now talking to one another. There is no other reason.
It seems like I see. But… You say the flow of thought is moving away from what is. But during our daily activities and interactions , objects of our perception are naturally changing, that is what I called “the flow of thought”. What about this?
Our life is a movement in relationship. What is happening now in our dialogue together is part of this movement. And what is thought’s proper place in all of this? Are we aware at all of the presence of thought? Or are we aware of it only retrospectively, looking back on what has happened between us, for example?
So what you are calling the flow of thought may not be a flow at all, but instead merely a series of reactions to the actual flow of existence. It may be more about thought attempting to stem or control the flow of life than about having a flow of its own.
1 Like