I think this is a really good question James. I’d be very interested in exploring this.
Good! Then how do we proceed with this question? What are some of the aspects of it that spring to mind when we ask it?
One thing I notice - as we are asking this question a little bit too late in the evening to do it justice - is that it takes energy to see!
It is difficult to pay attention when the body is tired or sick or ill, or when we are generally fatigued.
So we need energy to see.
Another aspect of it - already mentioned previously - is that I cannot see if my mind is mentally preoccupied. If I am burdened by some problem, by interpersonal conflict, by worries and anxieties.
If I cannot be rid of such mental preoccupation, then I have to take this into account. I may have to find out if I can be free of mental preoccupation first.
But this is just one aspect of the question, so I don’t want to prejudice the enquiry with that from the start - as it requires its own line of questioning.
Another aspect, which is related to the energy question, is that seeing requires alert senses, sensitive awareness or alertness of the body itself.
As it’s late now (for us Europeans) there’s no need to reply tonight or this instant; these aspects are just possible starting points for us to consider.
Another aspect of this is, are we asking only about external visual seeing? Or are we also asking what does it mean to see ‘inwardly’ - as in, to see the whole of our consciousness (if this is possible)? - To see, be aware, of the whole movement of our mind, our psyche, what we are…
This may not be exactly on the topic of seeing visually, but it is related I feel. To see what is going on inside the skull!
Hi James and all. The question of energy - I think this is linked to interest and motivation. If we’re really interested in finding out about any question, being very interested usually brings energy. James, I’m sure many of us here appreciate the time and energy you spend on reading all contributions carefully and responding in such a comprehensive manner.
I think that looking at seeing in a K context implies investigating how we see both inwardly and outwardly. I think the two are very closely linked.
One of the factors that chiefly interests me right now is how the energy of seeing is interfered with by thought, and by what thought has put together inwardly, as consciousness.
That is, I am conscious, when I look outside myself at the bird, the trees, the garden, that I am looking from a background of residual interests, concerns, feelings, experiences, contents of emotion, thought, memories, knowledge. And all this is influencing my perception.
So part of this question of seeing for me - right now at least - is becoming aware of this background from which my seeing arises. To find out if it needs to be there, if it can be absent, or if it is monolithic, steadfast, unshakeable, like the fact of sensation is undeniable. Or if it can dissolve like mist, like smoke, into space… So that there is no interference in the energy of perception.
I realise in discussing this that it is so easy to get caught in repeating K’s language around these questions.
On another thread Bob was saying that K isn’t here, so what are our own responses to things. This is surely valid (though Bob seemed to go further than this and was saying or implying that he’s no longer interested in what K said).
So what are our own responses to this question of seeing?
I have discussed on other threads about visual or optical seeing, or seeing/perception through the senses. Right now this question doesn’t seem to grab me that much - maybe it’s because I feel I have discussed it so much already (e.g. with Douglas when he was here). So what interests me is whether there can be a holistic perception, a comprehensive observation of anything: of nature, of the world outside of my skin, of other people; or of myself, of my consciousness as it is acting through the present.
I feel that this kind of simple basic question gets lost on Kinfonet amidst all the controversy of people claiming forever to have boring insights and others claiming forever to have gone beyond Krishnamurti because they know better (this covers more than 50% of what goes on here, I feel).
But we need to have the freedom to ask ourselves these basic fundamental questions, such as Can the mind ever be free from its conditioned contents?, Can there be a holistic perception of the whole of consciousness, of the whole of life?
Without the freedom to ask these questions, what are we even doing here? It’s so nuts for me that we even need to argue about this.
I know you’re not a very verbose person, but I hope you don’t mind me sharing all this.
So part of my question is, is there a way of asking these types of question in a way which is authentic to ourselves, is spontaneous and natural to us, but which doesn’t leave out a sense of the whole ?
1 Like
Rather a vague definition of meditation, don’t you think? What is a person supposed to do with that? Listening to K discuss meditation will simply tie a person into knots. Many people who try to understand K will fall into depression as they feel there is nothing they can do to bring about change.
Something to be wary about for sure. But that is what we are trying to examine. Prejudice. If it weren’t K it would be something else.
If we are interested in what it means to see (without prejudice) we have to be able to begin with what we mean by looking. How do look now as a normal biased human being, not some imagined enlightened one. Begin with examining the functioning of our own multi-layered, human consciousness. And proceed from there as best we can.
Is the observer really the observed - to use K’s language? And does this make looking without prejudice impossible? A moot point? How do we proceed to look at that question for ourselves, finding out for ourselves. Are we actually conditioned? How do we perceive now? How do we go about examining that? What is conditioning? What are its ramifications with regard to perception? Can we talk about that with each other. From the point of view of I don’t know, I have theories that I hold tentatively, but it is that holding that we want to look at, it is that process we are wanting to find out more about. Do we look through what we hold to be the case? And is that whole thing non-real as K proposes. Imagery? How to find out?
Are we not interested in finding out how perception works for ourselves? Baby step by baby step. Not being told by someone else. Using the teaching to inform the enquiry but not distilling them down into a personal philosophy of some sort, such as denying 'psychological" thought at each and every moment, end of story That would be nothing novel. A glorified form of mindfulness masquerading as choiceless awareness.
I understand that there are people who are not interested in this type of enquiry. That they just want to be told the answer and maybe even have gotten the answer. I don’t know whether they have or whether they are deluding themselves. What I don’t get is why they would want to be in on a discussion with people who are trying to find out for themselves. Is it because they want to show us the error of our ways? To save us the trouble of finding out for ourselves? Have us turn to to the end of the book of ourselves and just read the solution to the problem without understanding the why of it?
2 Likes
Yes, this is the approach I feel is valid. This is the inclusive approach or attitude that K himself seems to have had when exploring things - even though he may have actually been enlightened!
So, to start an investigation with a quality of not knowing, of starting afresh, of being honest about our human biases and preferences, the simple facts of human consciousness.
Part of the issue we face on Kinfonet is the issue of relationship, which constantly interferes in this investigation. Some people want to begin from their own theories, their own implicit or explicit rejection of K’s teaching. And some people want to begin from their own self-declared achievement of insight. Responding to these claims and counter claims takes up all our energy, and it doesn’t seem to lead anywhere. It seems that the people who believe in their own theories of thought continue to pursue them, no matter what is said. And the people who passionately believe in their own achievements of insight refuse to put these insights aside and begin from the ground level - as K did.
So is there a way of not dismissing these people - because they often have reasonable things to share - but not getting caught up in hopeless wrangling either, because this just becomes a wastage of energy?
This relates to the fact that we each have images of each other on the forum. Speaking for myself, I realise I have an image of everyone who participates here. Obviously these images are not who people really are. The images may contain partial observations of what people are, but the images are fragments, half-truths at best, and outright prejudices at worst.
Do we attempt to suppress these images that we have of each other in relationship? Or do we begin by admitting to the fact that they are there - whether they are justifiable or not, whether they contain an element of truth in them or none at all?
So, seeing in the context of my relationship with others must begin with accepting the fact that I have images of other people (and of myself) which are actively interfering in perception. This is the start of it.
1 Like