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?
**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?
**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.
**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’.
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.