I’ve already done that.
Be a sport, do it again, with feeling. As Krishnamurti had said, love is now and it’s always new.
Someone asked what I meant by “mind”, so I sent him something from wikipedia. It was just a couple of days ago. You should be able to find it quickly.
In that case, it was not something you said yourself. A Krishnamurti discussion, like love-making, is directly between the living. You can’t do it by proxy; especially, asking the other party to go dig up the corpse you are using in your stead.
I think the conversation about mind has shifted here https://forum.kinfonet.org/t/can-the-mind-competely-understand-itself/229
What is Meditation?
Awareness of the Observer.
Contrary to some comments here on Kinfonet, I am usually unable to observe my thoughts.
Whenever I look, they are nowhere to be found.
Unless of course I find some thought to be really clever, or if I am obsessing over something - In which case the thought is repeated again and again for my pleasure (or horror)
But usually thoughts are like the floaters in my eye : they avoid my gaze.
Even more silence occurs when there is an awareness of the observer.
“Awareness of the Observer”
Not to be confused with the just as confusing : “The Observer is the observed”
Which simply means : all we can see is ourselves. What we think of as “the stuff out there” is just our brains telling ourselves stories.
For example : What we think of as “a truck rumbling by over there” is in fact my brain’s interpretation of vibrations in my ear drum (and/or colors on my retina) based on past interpretations. Its all me.
How about observing more grosser aspect of matter, which are actions of the physical? And taking it from there, we come upon thoughts, reason being that most actions are thought/desire driven.
Are you suggesting that I should watch myself doing stuff?
Whilst I am doing it? Or after?
Sounds like a disease. What would this achieve?
Maybe you mean that if we can see why we do stuff, we will gain some understanding about ourselves and our motives?
The question then becomes : can we trust our own interpretations and conclusions? Aren’t they just some more thought? Just another action of the self?
That’s almost a paraphrasing of Fyodor Dostoyevsky who said ‘to be overly self conscious is a sickness’.
But yes, while one is doing it. I understand that the natural flow from feeling to action will be influenced once an observer is set in for observation, and therefore the K insight that there is no observer separate in observation. But that doesn’t imply there is nothing left for observation, on the contrary that one is choicelessly aware.
This might be because by becoming 2 : the watcher and the one being watched - we become a halfling living a half life. 2 selves is worse than 1.
If you watch Joy, it dies.
Why is taking the path of disease, as a path to wholeness, reasonable?
How does splitting ourselves in 2 make us whole?
In Zen this is called : Putting a head on top of a head. If I am suffering due to my confusion, should I rely on my judgement and interpretation?
Observation changes what is being observed - In this case self consciousness changes the self into a parody of itself for itself - this is a sickness.
Who/what is choicelessly aware?
Without “me”, it’s all the brain.
The brain, thought, is the me.
We are not gathering a perspective from such observation, therefore no judgement or interpretation.
This is correct, the more we observe, the more we can subject parts of ourselves too in observation and therefore what is observed constantly changes depending on our sensitivity.
This is not what is implied.
observer is an integral part of observation.
Isn’t that a wrong question? Let’s say mind, as in that which undergoes constant transformation.
I am implying it (from experience - just try observing yourself - your breathing for example)
Fyodor might be implying it.
And K seems to be stating it quite clearly when he speaks of the paradoxes implicit to the action of the self in traditional meditation techniques
The brain is an instrument, the “me” is a filter - we’re saying that that we don’t have to rely exclusively on the “me” filter - that the brain’s potential may not need to be subjugated to one exclusive, overriding constraint.
Krishnamurti asked the following:
“Can we look at anything objectively? - the trees, nature, the waters, the sky and the evening star and the silence of a morning. This extraordinary world we live in - natural world - can we look at anything without a single word?”
Krishnamurti - Question and answer meeting number 1. Sannen, Switzerland, 22nd July 1984.
You seem to be saying that this is not possible as there is always a goal in looking at anything. Is that right?
You can see the full video (almost 16 minutes) here:
What I understand from “observer is the observed” is, in psyche field that is when I am angry or jealous etc and at that moment if there is real awarness , then there is only anger/jealousy. Moments latter self arises as thought and says “I was angry/jelous” etc.
Comming to outside world, when there is real awarnes and looking at the clouds,there is sense of vastness and movement with the clouds with no thought arising. Similarly when looking at a flying eagle there is a sense of gliding with eagle. Does it mean "observer is the observerd ", do not know. But K one said he saw himself as the ant climbing a blade of grass, as a fasting rotating wheel of a moving car.
So what actual K meant by “observer is the observed” in relation to outside world I do not know. It seems when one is real awarness/attention there is neither observer nor observed, only observation/awarness.
The brain is more than thought. It is a system of neural networks that communicate, more or less with each other. The delusion of “me” is brought about by thought, and maintained by the default mode network.
What else does the brain do aside from thought? There may be something, I’m no expert. I’m just asking.