Has anyone contemplated that K might simply be asking “have you tried it?”, in the sense of finding out whether or not it is possible to see without words with a mind full of words?". On the other hand, isn’t the word “try” just another word for a mind already full of words that she uses to try to understand the reality around her? Now, would that mean then, that for a mind full of words it is impossible to see anything without words?
1 Like
McDoug ask the question:
I rephrase the question as :
What you say is right . But I think that maybe there is nuance here. When I observe myself, there is the observed. Let’s say I realise that I separate myself from what I observe, thinking that I can act upon it, like controlling my jealousy. Then I see the truth that the observer is not different from the observed: both are a creation of thought. Thought have create jealousy, thought create anger, thought create fear. And then thought create the thinker, the observer as something different from the observed. That’s one thing.
If my mind is very still, without reacting, without the network of thought, which is the past, then as you say, there still can be observation. But now the past, the observer, the network of thought doesn’t interfere in my observation. Isn’t it what he is talking about?
1 Like
Yes, K said that only a quiet brain, one that is empty of psychological content, can commune with the Mind, which is beyond the brain.
Yes. But if the mind is still, quiet , silent , and that’s a big if, what is it to observe ? I suggest:
This question seems to imply that a still, quiet, silent mind would be a kind of dead, inactive, sleeping mind with nothing else to observe. But is the questioner forgetting that such a mind is fully alive with a world still around it, and therefore with a fully active “gaze”?
So, if I may ask… What makes the questioner think that such a mind would have nothing else to observe? Is it perhaps because the questioner still thinks of the observation of such a mind, in terms of the observer and the observed?
You have misread me fraggle.
There seem to be 2 aspects to this inquiry ;
- What are “things” (the things we see) other than projected, reified, concepts arising from conditioning?
- By “quiet mind”, or stillness, do we mean nothingness? Do we think that mind should somehow be apart from the constant flux, chaos, movement of existence? Or is the only thing that needs to be silenced our identification with need? The need arising from the confusion between knowledge and reality?
1 Like
I don’t think so @Richard…
You speak of “world”, “universe”, “life”, “relationship”, “wife”, “husband”, “child”, etc. as possible objects of observation for such a mind, but these are all mere labels that such a mind will only use if it has to communicate with a dual mind, otherwise it simply observes without labels or attention (which is another label for the dual mind).
But the dual mind can only understand that observing through concepts and labels, so when it tries to understand it, it believes that when the labels disappear for that mind, it doesn’t actually observe anything, and so it falls into a kind of nihilism with respect to that mind.
That is to say, the dual mind fails to understand that such a mind observes everything without observing “anything”… and it seems that it will not understand it until it itself reaches that state of non-duality (where in fact it will not have reached anything).
1 Like
One description of the non-duality between observer/observed is the realisation that all that I see is produced by me, all my actions based on knowledge is just more me.
Me being the illusion of duality, whose function is survival, based on the action of one over the other.
1 Like
The answer to that question will be yes for a dual mind (which has even coined a special label for it, i.e. “nihilism”) if it fails to comprehend that “nothingness”.
No, for that mind is still in this world using that flux, chaos, movement of existence (from which it has freed itself), to communicate with the dual mind.
Any answer to this question based on labels will definitely mislead the dual mind (the mind based on concepts to try to understand reality) if that mind is not able to transcend those labels by seeing that they are just that, mere labels that have nothing to do with the actual thing.
You said it, it is a description. Now how does the dual mind get from the description to the actual thing, which is free of any description?
Yes. I think this is what he is saying. To ‘observe without the observer’ - which means to observe the clouds, the hot-air balloon, or one’s friend, without words, images or the interference of mental reactions.
1 Like
Sensitivity? And a total commitment to stop adding to all the suffering?
1 Like
By ‘trying’ to do these exercises: seeing things as if for the first time, following each and every thought, not judging the reactions seen in oneself, etc they are an attempted ‘negation’ of what we actually do do: not see things as if for the first time, judge what we see in ourselves, rarely are even aware that we are thinking…these efforts awaken the brain to other possibilities even if it can’t ‘do ‘ them. That may be the point, not ‘success’ or proficiency at doing them, just the ‘trying ‘?
1 Like
fraggle,
As long as the observer is caught in knowledge, and chooses not to see that thought is limited, it can’t.
The second part seems to imply an act of will, which would keep the mind in the same old familiar pattern, which wouldn’t help much. But as for the first part, what exactly do you mean by sensitivity?
The exigence of “success” being actually part of what we are supposed to see.
An unavoidable need/desire to negate the whole movement of suffering might also supply the energy necessary to face death. (and accept it - or accept the fact that the self and suffering are synonymous)
Acutely feeling the pain. And not being able to ignore it. maybe also a sense of responsibilty?
1 Like
Yes, trying these “exercises” (as you call them) can open the door, and “that may be the point, not ‘success’ or proficiency at doing them, just the 'trying”. But you also say “even if it (the brain) can’t ‘do’ them”.
Now, why is it that the dual mind, having tried those “exercises”, and having (let us say “accidentally”) opened the door, dares not go through it; and not only that, but most of the time it builds a fantasy trying to convince itself that it has actually crossed it?
Maybe sometimes psychological death, or silence, is so subtle it isn’t even noticed - and the effort to continually subject ourselves to the effort of awareness, considered boring.
Why should the brain go into the ‘unknown’ when the ‘known’ is bearable? Does any brain “dare” to go through the “door” or does something push it?
1 Like