Observing the Observer

Can you read his mind, still ?

Well this is at the heart of the paradox this thing is, in that the sense of it as notional only, set against the lived experience of it differs, and the lived experience of it, as evidenced by its continuation, is the thing that always seems to emerge intact. What is said of trying can be said of effort, or desire, or becoming. How can an nebulous thing make an effort, or how can an illusion desire?

Krishnamurti referred to it as a movement, and as a material process in the brain, which is itself matter, but movement implies momentum, and as the figure of speech has it, conditioning has a considerable weight behind it, and yet what can that weight be, other than another notion?

Some scientists speak of consciousness as emergent, as in building, reaching a tipping point of sorts, to then become something more than the sum of its parts, the illusion consolidated, while others say it is there from the outset in matter.

I consider illusion to be deception in the sense of, appearances can be deceiving, and that because perception is partial, so illusion is linked to partial perception, as set against a thing with no actual existence. It does have a basis in matter, and so is actual in that sense, which is why it is not easily dismissed.

The bottom line as far as the observer is concerned, is that there may be little point in questioning its existence, but not then questioning the existence of what is observed, since even with the statement the observer is the observed, there is no hierarchy of authenticity espoused of an observed over an observer, simply that the space between ‘them’ is not.

**This is where the ‘art of listening’ (and looking together) is important. Listening to how the speaker is using language, not jumping to an analytical assumption from memory.
Here are a couple of ways to use the word ‘thought’ as a pointer, from Bohm. I’m pointing to the first pointer, and you seem to have assumed it was the second pointer.

Word Pointer 1: Bohm: I wanted to say more about thought. Thought is incomplete. The thought of the table doesn’t cover all about the table. It picks up a few points about it. Our thought of it as a table is a simplification, or an ‘abstraction’. One way of looking at it is to say that thought provides a representation of what you’re thinking about.

Word Pointer 2: Bohm: We are saying that thought is not merely the intellectual activity; rather it is one connected process which includes feeling and the body, and so on. Also, it passes between people - it’s all one process all over the world.

**I’m not pointing to the whole undivided system of thought, I’m pointing "what is ‘a’ thought? It’s an abstract image, it’s not an “entity”, it’s “stored knowledge.” I’m not accepting a second-hand pointer from K, I’m looking at what ‘a thought’ actually is.

Krishnamurti: The brain is the source of thought.

** I don’t think it needs to be an Either/Or. I’d suggested that it’s important to ‘see’ clearly the nature of the “observer” that thought has created, as it appears to be at the root of human conflict, and it’s also important to ‘see’ clearly the nature of the “observed,” which appears to involve the limits of the human sensory system. And it’s important in the sense that there’s ‘an interest in seeing the nature of human conflict, and the root of the human created disorder’. Thanks for your response…

Yes I agree. I consider it a matter of what is in play here around seeing the observer, about which there is a block in place. It is as if the brain has a handbrake applied for safety and is reluctant to let such observation as would otherwise be, take place. Else it would be seen and the matter would be at an end, unless there is a factor at work that actually makes that impossible.

So much of a block that someone recently made an affirmation here that insight was a myth. A magical religious belief of awakening and enlightenment. But I suppose that for most of us this is true. In order to see past that block, the desire for truth must be intense - it must be the most important thing in ones life. That is pretty rare. Another part of the equation is that one must have come across and studied a teaching that deals with understanding that the observer is the observed (like K, or zen buddhism, or advaita vendanta etc). And further more one must have the kind of brain that can grasp the weird counter-intuitive, non habitual reasoning proposed by most of these teachings.

At a total guesstimate I’d put that at around 5% of the population.

Meditation is the other essential part of this equation - the moment to moment liberation from the self. Some seem to be implying that this is an art, technique, practise that can be learnt and improved over time - I’d just like to say that the insight that the thinker is the thought is essential for there to be meditation - and that meditation is not something that one does. As in I am not involved in doing something in particular. Whether it be focussing on some aspect of being or perceiving - nor whatever - just the non-dependance on the known/freedom from thought/allowance for awareness. Whilst one is “learning” to meditate, one is not meditating - but maybe one usually does flail about and pass through various points of doing all sorts of stuff for the sake of “spiritual progress”

So what does meditation really have to say about the nature of that self and its predicament?

Meditation is what happens when the known is not the measure by which reality is represented.
And since no things are known, separation is not, reaction is not, conclusions are not.
Meditation is freedom from the self. And when the self is not, nothing is said about it.

Sometimes, very rarely, there may be some amazing insight or inhabitual cognitive states brought on by periods of intense inquiry - these can later be retranscribed by memory, and are what make up a lot of the incomprehensible parts of spiritual teaching - eg.observer is the observed, emptiness of absolute reality, self is suffering etc… Unfortunately for us, we are forced to interpret these statements from the point of view of the self and its standpoint of subject/object, good/bad separation.

It may be said that there is that which is not measurable, which is outside of reality, and not any thing, and it may be felt that all this is meditation and freedom from self. But it can also be, and without saying anything about whether it is necessary or of value, that there is a seeing deeply into fear, which is above the pay grade of any psychotherapist or psychiatrist, who are as vicars, and who are all in this as a functioning part of it, and no better equipped to deal than anyone else. But at that juncture there are things about self still, and about silence, and non-thought, and something called meditation which are like self’s inner sanctum, that speaks of an irrepressible quality, and a seemingly immovable object, capable of taking on all comers.

If something is not measured, or devoid of intrinsic existence, surely nothing indicates an outside of reality, nor what that might consist of.
Also if something has no intrinsic existence, how does it maintain an “inner sanctum”?

We are in agreement I think in eschewing all outside authority (vicars, psychologists) and that seeing what fear/self is, is freedom - insight and clarity being the antidote to ignorance and delusion.

I am pointing out that there is something which can be considered to exhibit certain qualities, which for the sake of verbal communication, may be called meditation, but that self possesses the ability within itself to be all that and more, and so there is a possibility of meditation that is considered as not-self, which is in fact self still, but in a very subtle way, as set against that which is an actual end of self. Self has had all the time in the world to learn how to mimic everything, and position itself everywhere, such that there is nothing in meditation ordinarily, or silence, or anything else, that it would ever view as a threat to its existence. It is genius after all.

Okay, I get it.
Yes, there are many cases of people supposedly meditating, when in fact the self is present.
In fact, if I think that I am meditating, I’m probably not.

If the meditation is something I am doing, whatever that may be (focussing on this, observing perceptions in general, visualisation) - if there is a conscious effort to perform some act - this is just the self in movement.

If there is an understanding that the movement of the self is not meditation, and we give up any idea of motive and effort - then there is still the subtle/habitual knowing and watching and discrimination. (Is this true? please take a moment - maybe sit down quietly and check it out)

If there is no knowing, watching, discrimination; where is self? Does self exist when it is not there? Is it possible to see the subtlest movement of self and let it go?

Depends on how you define “meditation”. My understanding is that it is acknowledging everything within the field of awareness, including thoughts as they spontaneously arise.

Whats the difference between meditation and how I usually acknowledge things?

I “practice” meditation so I can’t say what natural, unintentional meditation is any more than I can say what observation or choiceless awareness is.

Watching the TV news it was a story about Corona Virus infection tracing and someone lying about where they were at some time and place. The TV news reader asked the other reporter, how can you know when it is a lie or when it is true? These are the questions asked and talked about for ever, over and over again. It all points to I, me, you, who are the thinker, the actor, the meditator, etc. and we are asking ourselves these odd questions, such as, it is a lie or is it the truth? We have to see the responsibility, which is I, you, me, and look at what I am asking.

1 Like

Before tackling discrimination, what really is giving up or letting go in the context of self? Self is, and self cannot actually be non-self, though it can perform its own idea of it, and nothing is riding to the rescue of self from outside of itself to do the job it cannot, so is not giving up, and letting go just a notion self is to comfort itself by, which places it in control of things still, as in something it can be or do about itself? Is there not a dimension to self, which has been running in the brain of humankind for aeons, that is being overlooked when attention is on a what might be, rather than what actually is?

Correct - freedom is not something I can do. I cannot make myself not be. That is why we insist so much on insight - as in the instantaneous/inevitable collapse of the delusion via understanding/seeing.

Instantaneous as in not a gradual gathering of information via thought or an effort of observation. This gradual stuff being merely an improvement of the self : I am getting closer to enlightenment/awakening the more I meditate or make conclusions - being just the habitual, hopeful movement of me.

meditation is non dependance on the self/known, moment to moment (not forevermore) which necessarily needs the understanding that dependance on the self is merely dependance on the self (not freedom from the self)

PS - self and non self, as we relate to them, are both delusions

Two errors that we might be making are the following:

1)Avoiding meditation until we have worked it all out intellectually, or until we have the insight that frees us from the known.

2)Practising meditation in the hope that whatever we think we are doing may bring us to an understanding of what we think we are doing.

Is it possible to “meditate” with the understanding that dependance on thought is not meditation? That if I am trying to do something (observe, acknowledge etc), this is a movement of me? That both my confusion or knowledge (discrimination based on conditioning) is the movement of me? That the thinker is the thought?

Sit down and see.

PS. The instructions in zen buddhism are “just sit” - when this considered too vague ( :exploding_head:) the additional “no goal” instruction is given. If any more descriptions of meditation are asked for, the answers are usually given in the form of mysterious poetry - “let body and mind fall away” “think from non-thinking” - which means (I’m speculating) don’t depend on thought.

This is moving towards the crux of the matter here. We are aware of the conceptual framework laid out by Krishnamurti of what he stated, at least towards the end of his life, as the brain with its conditioning, the being of self, and mind, seen as outside of that with a totally different capacity, which the brain is not in contact with, and cannot contact. So there is the factor awareness or insight which can wipe the brain cells, containing the content that is self, with the proviso that such an end has to be instantaneous, as you outline above. So this factor which is outside of the self, which can act on it, is very much a paradox, and obviously suffers from the limitations of verbal communication, especially when done by a brain suffering delusion, which I understand to be the fact of partial perception, as distinct from unreal.

So the issue is this: either self is, or self is not, there being no intermediary state. Self is not in contact with anything outside of itself, the full extent of which it keeps from itself, though it appears it can see itself if it is concerned to, though this is not dropping or letting go anything of itself. Krishnamurti had many conversations with those close to him in which they would essentially repeat the things he said as though it was their understanding, and he would gently rebuke them, telling them it was not.

So not withstanding the things he discussed and which we all here are familiar with, I am saying there is a dimension to self akin to thought in its ‘distant’ past having fashioned the equivalent of a safe room for itself, which it has inadvertently locked itself in, which has no door, no lock, and no key, and that there is something to this as a reality which needs to be faced, before anything else can be understood, and anything else at this point only serves as a distraction.