I don’t understand the last sentence, how is the ‘observed still a mass of conditioning’?
I mean in the sense if someone points to truth, truth being something whole, in line with nature, natural state of being, if there is listening to it, that reveals the natural state of being. It is not belief, just as tree has no belief. Tree is natural state of being. So listening to what is completely natural, without effort, reveals to the mind what is natural, without will. That being whole.
You become naturally older. Will has no role to play. There is acceptance of natural state of being. Similarly if someone points to natural state, there is acceptance of it. Someone pointing that nature has no division, there is actually no division so your brain functioning in division changes. It is now without division, will, just natural being without any division
re: “I don’t understand the last sentence, how is the ‘observed still a mass of conditioning’?”
The observer being the observed realisation, you being that which you thought you’d observe, ends psychological division (and also a great deal of conditioning), but it’s only the beginning; it doesn’t wipe the board clean. The psychological phenomenon, the conditioned, state remains to be unfolded. That is the work: watching watching, watching. It’s just different when there’s no division.
Looking at a lot of the many responses to this inquiry…. It appears that many confuse the psychological with the practical… and some then use this lack of understanding to argue that pretty any deliberate movement by a person is a method to go from here to there.
These ‘arguments’ are a demonstration of what is ‘psychological’ method/ intention/ movement.
Using thought in order to build a necessary bridge across a river… or thought to repair a tyre picture need not involve any psychological method.
But in the moment, this moment, when the observer me is realized to be the observed…there is freedom, yes? But the situation of me as observer returns. What, there is not the ‘energy’ to dispel the ‘conditioning? @Adeen seems to be saying that the transformation for him is ongoing?
re:“But in the moment, this moment, when the observer me is realized to be the observed…there is freedom, yes?”
I call it clarity.
re: "But the situation of me as observer returns. What, there is not the ‘energy’ to dispel the ‘conditioning?‘’
The end of the illusory psychological division between observer and observed is irrevocable. That’s the new reality the new normal. Everything comes from that fundamental perception, BUT IT’S ONLY THE BEGINNING, what J.K. called the first and only step.
1 Like
Howdy,
It might help if you give an example of the sort of mistake thats being made, and why its important.
Of a journey to some higher understanding? - which could be construed as slightly paradoxical with regards to the “only one step” idea.
Or of my new life in this new world?
I would put it this way: to ‘step out of the stream’ is the first step and the last. The desire to stay out of the stream is to be back in it. Does that make sense?
1 Like
re: "Of a journey to some higher understanding? - which could be construed as slightly paradoxical with regards to the “only one step” idea.
Or of my new life in this new world?"
You misquoted. There’s no bracketed ‘OF’ and although it might be an idea to you, it is reality, the way things actually are. It’s hard to get across because it’s so close and obvious. Anyways, the end of the illusory psychological division is the beginning of an observation of the mind of brain, consciousness, without a separate observer. That unfolds the mind, undoes what has been put together by thought.
1 Like
If this is what you meant to write, I don’t get it. I was with you up to “tyre”, but where it goes from there doesn’t seem to follow. Please explain.
Did you mean to say, “Why is there not the energy”?
Why assume that the first and last step is the beginning of “a journey to some higher understanding”? It may be the end of that journey, or of journeying altogether. If you could know what the first and last step is before taking it, it wouldn’t be a transformational step, would it?
That question arose at the moment: have the energy to be ‘free’ from the duality illusion of a separate observer. But isn’t that masking the desire to hold onto a state? A kind of greed to have (and hold) the ‘treasured’ ‘observer is the observed’ state?
The energy it takes to see the error of one’s way is being dissipated in sustaining it, so it may be that awakening cannot occur until there’s a critical shift in the distribution of energy.
Yes. The ‘critical shift’ is the perception that the observer is the observed and as @H20 posted, that perception is “irrevocable “.
What every brain eager to transform wants to know is how to precipitate the tipping point, the shift of energy that triggers transformation. And that very eagerness, that desire, is what prevents it from happening.
So is nothing new after decades of decoding K’s words and meanings? Are we still where we were when we began? The conditioned brain is no less conditioned than it ever was. But what has changed, what’s new, is that the conditioned brain is more interested in awareness/self-knowledge, and more skeptical of what it presumes to know.
Thought can believe in whatever it chooses to believe in because it is the power of belief, the power of suggestion, self-hypnosis.
Once brain has seen that there is no division, there is no going back. What is relation of division to non-division?
Say you see humanity is one and a politician talks about war, what is the relation between non-division and division? Krishnamurti could not do much about wars but he kept talking his entire life. There is no relationship between the two. So you might be surrounded by conflict, people who are prejudiced in terms of division, you do your own thing and they do theirs. The issue is with them that they believe in division. You talk about non-division. If they listen and see that there is no division, they change. If they don’t listen due to division, they won’t. But it is up to each to see. K could talk but not do much about anything else. So there is no relation between division and non-division. Perhaps the person living in division sees the person living without conflict, in harmony, get’s interested and listens to the fact of non-division.
Physical choices remain. We might decide not to eat some particular food for example. This does not create division but is part of being whole or wholesome.
Does this need conflict, division of thinker? Does the thinker arise only in division? This we can explore.
No, because the stream is the force-field of desire/fear, and to step out of it is to be done with it.
1 Like