Looking without the word , without reaction. Can you ?
Got it ? Vous avez compris ? ( J. Krishnamurti )
4 Likes
âHow do we tell the difference between âobserving ourselvesâ and âthinking about ourselvesâ?â
Great question! Top marks for the question!
When I try, I cannot. Because trying (and I & my knowledge) is desire. Desire is not seeing.
Yet if you donât âtryâ, what is the point? If you agree with him that the brain is caught in a network of words/time and say right âgood pointâ and leave it there? He says follow every thought like watching a bird in flight, no reaction just watch. Then the brain becomes fresh, new etc. Try it and see if you can do it.
If I canât follow each thought, I ask why. And then I try again, not to âgetâ anywhere but to see if what heâs talking about can be done. Itâs not a surprise that we canât do it for long because itâs foreign to the brain which he says is âcaught in a network of wordsâ. The brain may not want to see things as if for the first time, itâs happy with the old way of seeing, through images of everything. But to not try because that would be âmeâ trying or âmeâ desiring something misses the point I think.
1 Like
In fact at 6:38 he ask : can we do that ? Have you ever tried that ?
K.: Can we look at anything without reaction, first, then find out if we can look at all that without the network of words interfering with our observation. Can we do that ? Have you ever tried that ?
To me heâs saying try it as if your life depended on it because it does. And when you stop observing and go back to thinking, pick up the observing again, lose it and pick it up again and again etc.
Forget about âall the restâ.
1 Like
By âtryâ do we mean : âI am now going to try and look without namingâ ? This is nonsense, non?
Rather I think we mean : âI am now going to see whether I always know/name things when observingâ - so experiment and observe as a curious scientist, rather than someone who wants to look without naming.
2 Likes
Yes. And then we will discover if we can ? Is it what you mean ?
The brain wants to look and name. Thatâs what it does. It has trapped itself in âa network of wordsâ says K. It canât see anything âfreshlyâ as long as this condition prevails. And this condition wonât and hasnât changed. So how can it break out of this prison it is caught in? More words? More thoughts? More knowledge!
Analysis? No. So he says âwatchâ the words. Watch every thought as it comes and goes, donât miss a one âŚthe watching is important not the words. He says âhave you ever tried it?
2 Likes
Say for example, we observe the process of experiencing - I sit down in a calm space, and pay attention to what being me feels/looks like.
I get the impression of what I think is happening, what then? Maybe I notice that I know all that I see, hear and feel : thats a vase, thats a mosquito (I donât like that), I feel tired (I wish I had more energy) etc⌠Should we now try and see if we can look/feel our environment and inner sensations without knowing/reacting? And if we cannot, should we try harder? What are we doing? Arenât we still experiencing a separation between subject and object (observer/observed) and trying to implement control of one over the other?
Pardon if Iâm interrupting but all that you just posted, did you happen to watch each of those thoughts or is it that this excercise takes practice? You canât do it right off. When you âtryâ it the first few times Thought stops, itâs shocked. But after doing it when ever itâs remembered, there is it seems to me a change of focus (which is happening as I write this). Thereâs no problem finding reasons why itâs stupid or whatever to do this âŚas long as you watch those thoughts come and go.
Some thoughts just wonât be watched.
Can we consider whatâs been said - no need to share our immediate reactions - no one is being called stupid.
Maybe Iâve said something that is not correct, that we donât recognise or understand. Maybe Iâm confused. maybe my question doesnât make sense (there was a question).
âSensitivityâ to the fact that thinking is taking place helps. If I donât realize that âI â am thinking then obviously there wonât be the possibility of observing. Iâll just go on thinking until thereâs some kind of reminder that Iâm thinking and then the decision can be made to once again follow the stream of thoughts until I lose it again. So yes sensitivity to the fact that thinking is going on.
The point is to give the brain this new chore to do whenever it remembers. If for any reason it doesnât want to do it, then thatâs that.
Of course we are. Trying harder , or trying to implement control of one over the other is a reaction, is the network of thought.
It is a question. If the reaction or the network of thought is what have been call the observer, then the question is : can we observe without the observer, is it ? Not necessarly sitting in a corner or in front of a mountain. Can we look at all that, as he say, meaning our husband or wife , or a child, or anything, as though for the first time ?
1 Like
But as you say, itâs only an âas ifâ exercise, so why not play with it?
1 Like
I like the fact that in the extract K mentions a few potential objects for observation.
Nature, the natural world (trees, rivers, mountains, the clouds caught by the evening sun); or an obvious external thing like a hot-air balloon. To see if one can observe such a thing without naming, without bringing in words.
The things that go on in religious ceremonies, the obvious and external activities of religious people. To see if one can observe what is going on objectively, without reacting.
Oneâs relationship to a husband or wife, girlfriend or boyfriend - to see if one can observe them (or another) without the interference of past memories and images.
1 Like
The network of thought can also be called the observed (ipso facto, seeing as the observer is the observed).
What is observation, where there is no observer and no thing is observed?
Have I gone too far? Is this nonsense?
Expansion of the centre,
The âIâ can expand its thoughts but that âIâ is always circumscribed by the circle around which it has held onto everything that it has ever experienced. One recalls drawing circles with the aid of a neat instrument called a âcompassâ in trigonometry in high school. One could always widen/expand the width between the centre and the outside point of this compass, thus drawing bigger and bigger circles. Accumulating knowledge is very much like that - additive. Thus the area within the circle just gets bigger as well. In other words, it is very much like the contents of oneâs consciousness, getting larger and larger the more one expands oneâs thoughts, isnât it?
One realise that the observer is the observed when observing oneself. Without both, what is observation? The all world , universe, life , relationship ? And as Dan point out, with a new quality in awareness, attention ? Without the interference of the observer ?
1 Like
There is no âwithout bothâ. There is always observation, with or without the confusion induced by the illusory observer.