← Back to Kinfonet

Observational Inquiry vs Intellectual Inquiry?

K: If you treat what we are saying at a verbal level, then go away, it is a waste of time. - Madras Feb. 1952

K: I hope you are not merely listening to words, because then they will be another distraction, a waste of time. But if you are really experiencing the things that we are discussing, then they will have an extraordinary significance; because though you may follow words with the conscious mind, if you are experiencing what is being said, the unconscious mind also takes part in it. Given an opportunity, the unconscious mind will reveal its whole content, and so bring about a complete understanding of ourselves. - On Love and Loneliness

**What does it mean to “really experience the things we discuss?”

K: In listening, there is only pure observation. So we come to the point: Is pure observation, which is actually listening, love? - The Ending of Time

**Is there a difference between ‘interpreting words’ according to the intellect (trying to figure it out), and simply listening and looking? If there’s a me and a you, is that pure listening, or thought, the intellect?

Isn’t this question getting at the problem Man is facing: the inability to relate to each other? As long as we relate through the intellectual, personal accumulation, conscious mind, there is no relationship. There will be strife, comparison, judgement, etc. Your beliefs, experiences, desires, knowledge opposed to mine. If the limit of that which separates “me and you” is seen as that, then a different form of communication is possible. We start ‘clean’ each time, so to speak.

"When there is awareness of the tree, there is no evaluation. But when there is a response to the tree, when the tree is judged with like and dislike, then a division takes place in this awareness as the ‘me’ and the ‘non-me’, the ‘me’ who is different from the thing observed. This ‘me’ is the response, in relationship, of past memory, past experiences. Now, can there be an awareness, an observation of the tree, without any judgement, and can there be an observation of the response, the reactions without any judgement? In this way we eradicate the principle of division, the principle of ‘me’ and ‘non-me’, both in looking at the tree and in looking at ourselves.
…In the seeing of any fact, there is no ‘me’. There is either the ‘me’ or the seeing; there can’t be both. ‘Me’ is non-seeing. The ‘me’ cannot see, cannot be aware.( From The Urgency of Change).

Now what is our response on reading the above? When we see that we are not aware, that memory interferes, that there is no seeing, what happens? Do we observe our response without judgement?

Are you sure? Is there not an emotional response to the tree? Doesn’t that emotional response register on the emotional gamut?

can there be an observation of the response, the reactions without any judgment?

Moral, ethical, or personal judgment is absent, but the response has a measurable effect, as do all responses.

**The response over here is, “That’s an accurate description.” The response that says, “we are not aware,” appears to be a psychological translation, in accordance with the observer thought structure…a.k.a.“the conditioned mind.” It’s an analytical translation. ‘Who’ is it that’s not aware? Where is this ‘we’ that would “observe,” separate from the observed?

Any response(psychological) is from the thought structure or the me. It is the ‘me’ that says it is not aware. Is that all? Does it(me) stop there?

The brain is part of the whole environment, but distinctly unique in its function, and this distinction is mistaken for separation by the brain that is unaware of wholeness.

**Is it clear that the me or I is merely a thought-structure? Then it’s no longer confused for something other than conceptual imagery. It’s lost significance and it no longer has any relevance. Seeing the falseness of a self-image going somewhere in time has also lost all significance. Upon seeing this falseness, both have as much significance as thinking about unicorns. Would it create an emotional response in the body if someone insulted our unicorn? Likewise, the self-image, when seen as the fiction it is, is no longer defended.

**Is the brain not aware of wholeness when it’s not processing thought? The ‘distinctions’ are ‘abstract thoughts’ aren’t they? And the brain is simply processing the fragmented images. What’s missing is an awareness of what thought is doing or saying, and an awareness of the limited, abstract, nature of thought. Seeing this limitation, the brain no longer takes the psychological thought imagery literally as truth. The insight into the limited nature of ‘all’ thought, transforms the ‘system of thought’ to now ‘know’ (be aware of) its limited nature. So the brain no longer confuses the psychological thoughts for truth. And likewise, the psychological images are no longer triggering an emotional response in the body, as the images are clearly seen as just abstract thought imagery.

Yes, it’s “missing”, in that the brain has not awakened to what it is doing.

K. has asked the question a number of times: " Can thought be aware of itself"?

Thought has to be aware of itself to think coherently, but it doesn’t always know when it is out of its depth or operating when it shouldn’t

**Thought doesn’t ‘know’ when it’s out of its depth because it’s not an entity, it’s just limited information. It’s not a thing with a brain, it’s just thought, or knowledge that the brain uses to ‘interpret’ what the human being encounters.

**What appears to be the case, in observation, as described in my precious message, is that an ‘insight’ can reveal the limited nature of thought. It reveals that the word is never the thing. That insight ‘informs’ the brain that “thought is limited.” So, in essence, the thought (the content of consciousness) is then ‘aware’ (knows) that thought is limited. There are two common ways to use the word awareness. One is just an awareness of whatever appears to be present. The other, perhaps more common usage, is the same as, “Did you know’?” For example, “Are you aware that Joe retired?” That means, “Did you know, that Joe retired?” So, can “thought ‘know’ that it’s limited?” Yes, when there’s an insight into its limited nature, the person that has this insight, is now “aware,” “knows,” what the insight revealed.
So the answer to K’s question, is “yes,” When an insight reveals the limited nature of thought.
And as we all know…that’s just a description. The truth, one way or another, needs to be ‘seen’.

Thought can question and correct itself. It’s a process that uses information, knowledge.

I (thought?) am trying an excercise to see if ‘thought’ can be aware of its own ‘movement’, not the content of the thoughts, just an awareness that it is moving, that it is in motion…

This sounds highly circular - a sort of confirmation bias - using what I know to prove that I’m correct.
How do you choose which information is correct?

Is it clear that the me or I is merely a thought-structure? Then it’s no longer confused for something other than conceptual imagery. It’s lost significance and it no longer has any relevance. Seeing the falseness of a self-image going somewhere in time has also lost all significance. Upon seeing this falseness, both have as much significance as thinking about unicorns. Would it create an emotional response in the body if someone insulted our unicorn? Likewise, the self-image, when seen as the fiction it is, is no longer defended.

My question is about what actually happens. Not a theory of what may or may not happen when such and such is seen.

**The idea of “not the content” is thought perpetuating its movement. Any attempt to control or exclude is a movement from thought/memory. The content reveals the nature of the movement.

Yes agree to all that but wanted to approach just the movement, just the scratching, not what was being scratched. Lots of energy being burnt up here.