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 āmeā is a filter - weāre saying that that we donāt have to rely exclusively on the āmeā filter - that the brainās potential may not need to be subjugated to one exclusive, overriding constraint.
Krishnamurti asked the following:
āCan 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?ā
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:
1 Like
What I understand from āobserver is the observedā 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 āI was angry/jelousā 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 āobserver is the observedā 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 āmeā is brought about by thought, and maintained by the default mode network.
1 Like
What else does the brain do aside from thought? There may be something, Iām no expert. Iām just asking.
1 Like
Yeah, but that just explains what the brain is and what itās components are. You didnāt answer the question; what else does it do besides think?
Iām saying that the self always has a goal : getting what it wants and avoiding what it doesnāt want - this is what āthe selfā is.
The question is : is understanding possible without the filter of āselfā - is clarity possible.
The answer is : Clarity is only possible when there is no self.
No. Anger/jealousy is āI really, really want/donāt wantā. The I is expressing itself very strongly due to lack of attention - maybe due to exhaustion (?)
In awareness, there is no picking and choosing. There is no you vs me.
We often mistake judgement, interpretation or point of view, for awareness.
Yes, maybe. I like to say silence is an open heart. Meaning, love is embracing what is.
Yes, this is an agreed position by many of us who come here. The thing is, that in the video I posted in comment 83 on this thread, Krishnamurtii asks if we can find out if we can observe without reaction and without the network of words interfering with our observation. I understand that we have to experiment with this ourselves. Is there another way? Just go for a walk in a wood or by the sea or just sit on a bus and experiment with awareness and attentiveness. You seem to be saying that if we ever observe anything like a tree, a cloud or anything else there will always be a goal behind it. Surely there is a trap here. You wrote āClarity is only possible when there is no selfā. Iād like to ask how you know this. Is it a theory or something that you have actually experienced through observation when the self is absent?
Yes the self is a trap. Even when we observe ourselves, we see through its filter.
The theory has always been part of my life - and will have probably conditioned my experiences - hereās a link to one I described earlier in another thread :
https://forum.kinfonet.org/t/is-the-self-real/226/34?u=macdougdoug
Is the trap perhaps all the things we think we know about the self? If you, me or anyone else thinks they canāt observe a tree or a cloud because the filter of thought/self will always be there then any observation will be blocked. If you observe anger rising in yourself, what happens? In the instance that there is seeing there is change. This is something that can be observed in daily life. You can think about it and analyse it afterwards but the action comes directly as the seeing occurs.
The self is a (successful) survival mechanism - words are part of its toolbox in its function as progress/security provider - which is to say : knowledge is part of identity.
We can test this. Sit quietly an see - all sensation will be accompanied by interpretation, and all interpretation will be considered true. The trick is to be completely forgiving (of yourself for starters) and to stay calm and curious - and with any luck, even the observer will be seen.
In any case, during meditation anything that is seen, must be seen as just the movement of self. It musnāt be believed, musnāt be held on to. Just see and let go.
Yes - Knowledge is part of identity.
When you say āall sensation will be acompanied by interpretationā, do you mean that thought will always be present? Without thought then interpretation is surely impossible. What you describe in the quote above above may well be true for you but to apply this universaly is surely assumption. How can we know what happens when someone else sits quietly or looks at a cloud or a tree? This really is something that we can explore on our own and something which Krishnamurti encouraged us to do.
It was meant as an invitation to find out - to observe the movement of your mind (if thats possible?) - is it possible to see that we have a tendancy to be swept along unawares by the movement of the mind, always caught up in analysis, interpretation and conclusions. Swept along by what we think to be our own volition. Swept along by what we mistake for reality. Whereas its all just very gross, or if we are attentive , sometimes more and more subtle expressions of self.
Yes, I am assuming that you are a human like me. Except that you might actually prefer strawberry.
Do you feel that you do not interpret what is?
Wrong question. There is no room for conclusions in attention, since it is constantly in motion. Any answer to this question comes from thought and memory, not from attention itself.
Why thought wants to know that?
Not at all a stupid question, Douglas ā¦ it is the āmeā itself.
āLet goā implies will and the will does not belong to the field of āthe observed is the observerā but to the field of a āmeā that is divided from that which is observed (in this case, thought). So āsit quetly and see, just seeā.
āI likeā, āI dislikeā, āthis is goodā, this is bad", and so on, so on.
Because attention itself is knowing and that knowing is new every time, i.e.: attention donāt need to keep that knowing in memory or convert it into experience.
1 Like
Wrong. As soon as you know that you are attending, attention stops and thought begins. There is no such thing as āattending with knowledgeā.
Only with a silent mind observing itself.
1 Like